pasm_save

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does state the core side effect: immediate disk persistence and the default scope of saving all loaded agents. It does not mention permissions, confirmation, or potential overwrite behavior, but the main operation is transparent enough for a simple save tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, the scope modifier, and the parameter behavior with zero filler. Every element earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is almost fully complete: it names the operation, the object, and the parameter's default behavior. It could mention what the caller receives on success, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and describes agent_id as optional, but the description adds meaningful semantic value by specifying the default outcome: omitting agent_id saves all loaded agents. This goes beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('落盘'/persist to disk) with a clear resource ('PASM 状态'), and immediately clarifies the optional agent_id scope. It stands apart from sibling tools like pasm_recall or pasm_status by being the explicit persistence operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the behavioral rule for omitting agent_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pasm_consolidate. Usage context is implied rather than directly spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.