保存する

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 richly: default non-overwrite, overwrite=true triggering a '.bak-timestamp-random' backup (itself never overwritten), rejection of write-protected/working folders even via symlinks or case variants, and rejection when the destination is a symlink. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive write.

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 core action in the first clause, then layers overwrite/backup and folder restrictions. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct, necessary information; minor edge is the single dense paragraph.

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?

A 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema; the description adequately covers overwrite behavior, backup policy, and access restrictions. It could mention return/confirmation behavior, but the operational picture is essentially complete.

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 67%, with path and score_id documented in-schema. The description compensates strongly for the undocumented overwrite parameter by fully specifying its true/false semantics and side effects, adding meaning well beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (保存する/save) plus the resource (今の版/current version) and the output formats (.mscz or .pdf). An agent can distinguish this save operation from siblings like score_open or score_render 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?

Explains constraints (default non-overwrite, folder restrictions) but never names an alternative or explicitly says when to prefer this over score_render or other siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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