rew_save_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'creates a plan' and points to an execute tool, but it does not reveal side effects, permissions, whether the plan is persisted or transient, what 'hash-bound' implies, or any safety considerations. The lack of any annotation coverage makes this a significant gap for a mutation-oriented tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose (alias, create plan) and the next step (execute with the specified tool). There is no fluff, and the critical information is front-loaded. It earns points for brevity, though it sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given the complexity of the sibling tools (rew_save_all_plan, rew_save_all_execute) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the relationship with rew_save_all_plan, does not explain the parameters, and does not describe what the plan looks like or its return value. An agent would struggle to know if this alias should be used instead of the plan tool, and it lacks essential details for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the three parameters (saveFile, home, note). The required saveFile parameter is entirely unexplained, and there is no indication of what values home and note should take or how they affect the plan. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it is a compatibility alias that creates a hash-bound Save-all plan, and tells the agent to execute it with rew_save_all_execute. The verb 'create' and resource 'Save-all plan' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from its execute counterpart. However, it does not explain what a Save-all plan is or how it differs from the sibling rew_save_all_plan, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 says it is a compatibility alias, implying it is for backward compatibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus rew_save_all_plan, which appears as a sibling and likely serves the same purpose. There is no guidance on whether the agent should prefer the canonical tool or when the alias is appropriate. The only instruction is to execute with rew_save_all_execute, which is insufficient for choosing between alternatives.

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