dd2_saveguard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that arm refuses saves outside test units, that Auto/AddAuto slots are blocked unless autosave=True, that the game saves slot 0 on load, and that the guard resets on restart. It omits what a refusal looks like (silent block vs. error) and whether disarm is immediate, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

It is short and front-loads arm behavior, but the sentence structure is awkward: a title fragment, then quoted action names in a list ('disarm', 'status'), then workflow and reset notes. The information density is fine but the formatting costs clarity for an agent parsing meaning.

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 three-parameter tool with 0% schema descriptions, the description covers the actions, units, and autosave meaning adequately, though it could say what happens when a save is refused and whether that surfaces as a tool error.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains units as test units, the effect of autosave=True, and enumerates the action values arm/disarm/status that the schema does not. The stated '(default [0])' conflicts with the schema default of null, which slightly muddies the units semantics.

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?

It states a specific function: a save guard with 'arm'/'disarm'/'status' actions that block saves outside test units. The verb-and-resource are clear enough to distinguish it from dd2_saves, though the opening fragment 'Bridge save guard' is jargon an agent must decode from the rest.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use rule: arm before loading a scenario so the load-time autosave cannot overwrite it. It does not explicitly say when to prefer status or disarm beyond naming the actions, and names no alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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