save_node_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes binaries and returns written paths, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, directory creation, required permissions). The 'Write' verb implies mutation but without further elaboration.

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 sentences long, with the primary action stated first and alternative guidance immediately following. No extraneous text, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description notes 'Returns written paths only' but does not detail the return format (e.g., list of paths, object). The tool has 4 parameters and is a write operation; the description adequately covers purpose and alternatives but lacks return structure details.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the output nature ('true-geometry SVG + PNG') and the default behavior of writePng (default true). This adds meaning without redundancy.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and identifies the resource ('REAL image binaries + true-geometry SVG + PNG for a node to outputDir'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'export_asset_pack' by stating a preference for that tool for full agent packs.

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 clear context by suggesting when to use an alternative ('Prefer export_asset_pack for full agent packs with AGENTS.md policy'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'export_node_assets'.

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