Uslup Kaydet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a write/mutation operation. It does not disclose whether an existing style sample is overwritten, how the file is named/stored, permission requirements, or any idempotency behavior.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple save tool.

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, and the schema covers all three parameters. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool, the description omits overwrite semantics and storage/naming behavior, leaving a real gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents path, etiket, and klasor with meanings and defaults. The description adds only the supported input types and default target directory, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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 (kaydeder = saves) and resource (yerel UDF/DOCX/MD dilekçe as üslup örneği), plus the destination (./uslup). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the sibling uslup_liste to distinguish the save operation from the list 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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not tell the agent how this differs from uslup_liste or when saving a style sample is appropriate versus dilekce_taslagi.

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