pine_save_new

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

Goes beyond the annotations with real behavioral detail: duplicate names are refused, the new ID/version/full source are independently verified, and the editor binding is untouched. This is consistent with the declared non-destructive, non-idempotent profile. It stops short of saying what happens when verification fails or whether the script is compiled/validated as part of the write.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the guarantees (dedupe, verification, binding preservation) into the same clause. Efficient, though the comma-chained construction makes it slightly run-on and hard to parse on first read.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, the duplicate guard, the post-write verification of id/version/source, and the side-effect boundary (editor binding unchanged). Missing only prerequisites (e.g. writability checks such as pine_can_write) and failure/rollback 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?

Schema coverage is only 40%: target_id and expected_layout_id are documented in the schema, while name, source, and timeout_ms are bare. The description implicitly ties 'name' to the duplicate check and 'source' to post-write verification, which adds some meaning, but timeout_ms and name/source constraints remain undocumented anywhere.

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+scope: 'Create a new cloud Pine script from supplied source'. An agent can distinguish this from a plain save because 'new' and 'cloud' are explicit. However, it never names the closely related siblings (pine_save, pine_save_as, pine_save_next, pine_new_buffer), so the differentiation is implied rather than asserted.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Create a new' and by 'Leaves the editor binding unchanged', which hints at when this is preferable to opening/rebinding an editor. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many pine_save* siblings, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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