Save all

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation writes buffers to disk and that related tools auto-save, but it does not address prerequisites (e.g., Studio connection), overwrite behavior, failure cases, or return 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?

The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical adds useful operational context without bloating the description.

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 zero-parameter, no-output tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action and notes automatic saving by build/run_app. A small gap remains around explicit Studio/IDE requirements and failure behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately does not invent any.

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 and resource: 'Save all unsaved editor buffers to disk.' It clearly scopes the operation to unsaved buffers and is distinguishable from sibling IDE tools such as ide_editors or ide_read_file.

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 parenthetical explicitly notes that build and run_app save automatically when Studio is running, which gives the agent clear context for when an explicit save may be unnecessary. It does not enumerate an explicit when-not or alternative tool, but the operational context is strong.

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