saveScenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'persist[s] the scenario to disk,' indicating a write side effect, and implies a dependency on stopRecording. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., duplicate names, write permissions), return value, or whether saving overwrites existing scenarios, so transparency is partial.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds necessary workflow context. It is front-loaded and earns every word.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools that form a recorder workflow, the description is adequately complete. It provides the purpose, the correct timing ('after stopRecording'), and the persistence behavior. It could mention return format or error behavior, but the essential context for correct use is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; it references 'recorded actions' and 'after stopRecording,' but the schema already describes actions and secrets as 'from stopRecording.' No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond what the schema covers.

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 the verb and resource: 'Save recorded actions as a scenario.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deleteScenario, listScenarios, and getScenarioInfo. It also adds the key detail of persisting to disk, which clarifies the tool's specific role in the workflow.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after stopRecording.' This tells the agent the correct sequence in the recording workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'after stopRecording' instruction is strong and clear enough for correct invocation.

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