save_algorithm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool persists to the session's project and details the complex nested structure of the spec. However, it does not explicitly mention authorization needs or confirm the destructive nature of replacement.

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?

The description is lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. Given the complexity of the spec, every detail is necessary. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) without losing clarity.

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?

The description extensively documents the spec structure but lacks details about return values (no output schema) and error conditions. For a highly complex tool, this is a minor gap; overall, it provides sufficient context.

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?

The parameter schema only defines an object with no properties, providing 0% coverage. The description compensates fully by specifying the entire nested structure of the spec, including required fields, optional fields, allowed values, and constraints.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates or replaces an algorithm storyboard from a JSON spec, specifying the verb 'Create or replace' and the resource 'algorithm storyboard'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_algorithm and get_algorithm by describing its unique input format.

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 implies usage for creating or updating algorithm storyboards but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like save_sheet or set_node. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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