export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that artifacts expire, that dest is created if missing, and that overwrite defaults to False 'so nothing is destroyed by accident,' which tells the agent exactly what the destructive path is. Nothing about the mutation's safety profile is left to inference.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and routing constraint in the first two sentences, then uses a compact Args block for parameters. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 4-parameter write tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, safety, destination semantics, naming, and overwrite behavior — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does, documenting all four parameters: refs accepts a single id or list, dest shifts meaning between file path and directory depending on arity, name documents its {n}/{ext}/{id}/{stem} placeholders plus the default, and overwrite explains its default and rationale.

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 ('Save one or more results to a real location on disk') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by declaring it is 'the only tool that writes to the user's filesystem.' An agent can distinguish it from list_artifacts, discard, and the pdf_* readers without opening any schema.

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 explicit timing ('call it once at the end, when they have said where the output should go') and a concrete anti-pattern ('Never hand an artifact id back as if it were a finished file; artifacts expire'). This is precisely the when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance the dimension asks for.

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