psu_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the action but does not disclose whether an existing preset gets overwritten, whether settings are persisted, or whether any state is affected beyond the preset.

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 extremely compact: one clear sentence followed by a single parameter definition. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, and the description plus schema cover the essential call correctly, especially since an output schema exists. The only notable gap is the absence of overwrite/persistence semantics, which keeps it from being fully 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?

The schema provides only 'preset' as an integer with no description. The description closes this gap by explicitly specifying 'Preset number (1–5)', giving the agent the valid range needed to call the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') with a clear resource ('current settings') and target ('a preset on the power supply'), so the operation is unmistakable. The name also distinguishes it from siblings like psu_recall by the direction of the 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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as psu_recall. It does not state prerequisites, when saving is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from related preset operations.

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