pine_save_as

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the SHA-256 and layout preconditions gate the write, and a reconciliation receipt is returned if binding fails after the save. It does not say whether the newly saved script is left orphaned when that failure occurs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and no filler. The dense jargon ('exactly hashed', 'natively bind', 'reconciliation receipt') costs some immediate readability but every clause carries substance.

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 five-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the save-then-bind flow and the partial-failure receipt are covered, but the description omits the post-save failure state, permission requirements, and how it differs from the other pine_save* siblings, leaving real gaps for an agent invoking it.

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?

Only 40% of the schema is described, so the description must compensate for name, expected_binding_sha256, and timeout_ms. It alludes to 'exactly hashed' and 'verified new ID/version/source' but never states what the hash is computed over, that a mismatch aborts, or what timeout_ms governs.

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 and resource: saving the visible Pine buffer as a new, uniquely named cloud script, plus rebinding the editor to the new ID/version/source. That is far more precise than the bare name, but it never distinguishes this from close siblings like pine_save_new, pine_save_next, or pine_save, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over pine_save_new, pine_save_next, or pine_save, and no prerequisites such as a prior pine_can_write or pine_get_binding check. The usage is only implied by the description's phrasing.

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