save_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the side effect of writing data to disk, but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites an existing save or creates a new one, whether it is atomic, or what failure modes exist (e.g., disk full, invalid slot). The description is minimally transparent about the outcome but lacks depth on error behavior and data durability.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and subject. It contains no wasted words and is efficient, though it could benefit from an additional sentence about slot semantics, but the brevity is not excessive.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimalistic. It does not state whether the operation overwrites existing data, whether it creates a new save slot, or what the return value (if any) is. Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters), the description is adequate for basic invocation but lacks details on overwrite behavior and return type, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'data' parameter is described as 'Arbitrary save data', which adds a small layer of meaning, but the 'slot' parameter has no description in the schema, and the description does not clarify its format or constraints. However, since schema coverage is 50%, the description partially compensates by specifying the data type (JSON) and purpose (save slot), but it does not clarify slot semantics (e.g., numeric index vs string key). This is a moderate addition over the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Write') and resource ('JSON data to a save slot on disk'), making its purpose unambiguous. The wording clearly identifies it as a save-write operation distinct from siblings like save_read, save_delete, and save_list.

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 is implied to be the mechanism for writing JSON data to a save slot, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like save_update or save_overwrite if they existed. It does not mention prerequisites such as 'slot' format ('e.g., slot number or key') or whether the slot must exist. The context clarifies it is for writing, but the usage context is sparse.

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