save_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool stores a named selection but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, requires authentication, or has side effects like overwriting existing selections. This is insufficient for a save-like operation.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose. The front-loading is good as the verb 'Store' immediately conveys the action.

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?

Description does not mention return values or confirmation, and the tool has a nested object parameter requiring explanation beyond the schema. Given no output schema, the description should clarify what happens upon success or failure. It is incomplete.

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 67%, with doc_id and region described. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The 'name' parameter lacks a description, but the overall schema is moderately explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Store a named selection that region parameters can reference later' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like copy_region or paste_stamp by specifying the saving for later reference, though it could be more explicit about the 'region parameters' context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it is used for saving selections for later reference, but does not explain when to prefer it over direct region definitions or other selection tools.

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