pine_save

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), yet the description still adds value: it says the tool verifies Saved status after writing and that unnamed-script dialogs fall outside its reach and need native UI. Missing is what happens on failure or whether a re-save is required.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the caveat second, with no filler. The phrasing is dense and tool-specific ("scoped toolbar") but every clause carries information.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent, verification and one failure mode, which is close to adequate. It leaves the precondition/mismatch contract and the post-save result largely to the schema, so an agent still has to open the schema to call it safely.

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 50% and the description only gestures at the parameters via "exactly identified" and "its scoped toolbar", hinting the target is pinned by identity assertions. It does not explain that expected_title / expected_layout_id / expected_source_sha256 act as preconditions that stop the write on mismatch (only the layout one is documented in the schema).

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+resource: saving "the exactly identified open Pine buffer" via its scoped toolbar. That is much clearer than a bare "save", but it never names the closely related siblings (pine_save_as, pine_save_new, pine_save_next) that an agent must distinguish it from.

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?

"New unnamed script dialogs require native UI handling" gives one negative condition, implying the agent should fall back to the ui_* tools for unsaved new buffers. However it never explicitly routes to pine_save_as or pine_save_new, so sibling selection for other save scenarios stays implied.

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