save_cue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the snapshot is volatile and lost on server restart. It omits other mutation behavior such as whether an existing name is overwritten and whether any prerequisite state is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the action comes first and the durability caveat is parenthetically attached rather than padded into its own sentence.

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 described, and for a one-parameter tool the description covers the action and a key behavioral caveat. Only name-collision/overwrite behavior is missing.

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% — the schema says only that 'name' is a string — so the description must compensate. 'Under a name' identifies it as a label but adds no uniqueness, overwrite, or format semantics, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (snapshot) and resource (current scene) plus the naming parameter, so the operation is unambiguous. It never explicitly names the sibling recall_cue, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 pairing with recall_cue is strongly implied by the save/restore naming, and 'current scene' implies you call it while the desired state is live, but no alternative or when-not condition is ever stated. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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