save_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses persistence ("saved with the .blend") and cross-session lifetime, plus the fact that saving alone does not execute the checks. However it omits overwrite semantics, permissions, and any return/confirmation behavior, which matter for a store operation.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, and no filler. The second sentence is partly about the sibling run_spec rather than this tool, but it is relevant operational context.

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 two-parameter persistence tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what is stored, where, and how it is reused) but leaves collision/overwrite behavior and the return value unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a save operation.

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 0% and both parameters are required. The description does clarify both: `name` is the key it is stored under and `checks` is a list of assert_spec checks (the schema only says generic objects). It still gives no detail on the expected shape of an individual check entry, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: storing a list of assert_spec checks under a name inside the scene. It names the related siblings (assert_spec as the check source, run_spec as the runner), so an agent can distinguish it from the many other tools in this namespace.

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?

Gives clear workflow guidance: save once, then rerun with run_spec after every change, and notes the checks survive into later sessions. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. name collision/overwrite handling or whether an existing spec is replaced), so it falls short of a 5.

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