save_live_set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it binds Set identity and on-disk file version, and reports success only after a changed-file or clean-state readback, which tells the agent how success is verified and that the operation is version-guarded.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the constraints follow. Density is high, which suits a version-guarded mutation, but the phrasing is somewhat compressed and could be marginally more scannable.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing essentials: what is bound, the Save-As exclusion, and the verification semantics behind the success report. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit prerequisites/permissions context is absent.

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%, so the schema documents dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, expectedStateVersion, and expectedSetFingerprint. The description still adds conceptual meaning by explaining that the call binds Set identity (fingerprint) and on-disk file version (state version), clarifying why the two required params exist as an optimistic-concurrency guard.

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 (Save) and resource (the currently named Set) plus the environment (running macOS Live app), and scopes it away from Save As for untitled Sets. It is clearly differentiated from related siblings like open_live_set and get_live_state, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 contrasts the two modes ('plan or request') and states a when-not condition ('does not invoke Save As for untitled Sets'), which routes the agent correctly. It stops short of naming prerequisite tools (e.g., get_live_state) or an explicit ordered workflow, 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.