Elements Save Tool

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the permission naming convention tied to the element type, and the fact that the manager's OnBefore*FormSave/On*FormSave events fire, meaning third-party plugin hooks can run. It stops short of stating what is actually destroyed on an update (whether omitted fields are preserved or wiped), which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability first, then permission and side-effect constraints. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most important operational caveat is not buried.

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 destructive, nested-object write tool with no output schema, the definition covers permissions and event side effects well. The remaining gap is response/verification behavior and update-merge semantics, which the agent would need to know after a destructive save.

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 67% and the schema already documents id omission, the type enum and the per-type code column mapping, so the structured data carries most of the meaning. The description only adds the permission-name pattern derived from type; it says nothing further about the free-form nested 'fields' object.

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 opens with a concrete verb pair plus the exact resource set (template, TV, chunk, snippet, plugin), so the agent immediately knows this is an upsert over element definitions. It does not clarify how this differs from the similarly named evo.write.content.create / evo.write.content.update siblings, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

It supplies a real prerequisite ('Requires new_*/save_* permission for the type'), which tells the agent a precondition exists before calling. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and no steering between creating vs updating (that cue lives only in the schema's 'Omit to create' note).

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