run_options_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose side effects: it validates types, choices and dependencies, routes services to config.toml and the rest to app.spec.json or a pending file, and records options_confirmed. It still omits error behavior, idempotency, and permission requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining clauses are information-dense rather than filler. It is a single run-on sentence with semicolons, which slightly hurts readability but wastes little space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers payload format, validation, and write destinations, leaving only error/retry semantics unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it clarifies that 'answers' is an {option id: value} map keyed by ids from run_options, and that 'app_dir' governs where non-service results land (app.spec.json). It does not fully spell out the app_dir null/default behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save the user's answers') and pins the expected payload format ('{option id: value}, every id from run_options'). Referencing run_options lets an agent distinguish this from the sibling that produces the ids in the first place.

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 mention of 'every id from run_options' implies this is the follow-up to run_options, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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