dd2_saves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does deliver the key operational constraint that restore requires the game to be closed. It does not say whether restore overwrites existing save files or whether a backup replaces an existing snapshot of the same label, which are significant omissions for a mutating tool.

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?

Very compact — every clause carries information about a distinct action, and the resource statement is front-loaded. The formatting is a slightly awkward run-on with nested quoting, but there is no filler.

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 the action/name matrix is covered. The remaining gap is the destructive semantics of restore and where snapshots are stored, which matters for a save-mutating tool.

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 it largely does: it defines what 'name' means for each action and gives the exact timestamp format for 'touched'. It does not state that 'list' ignores name or that the default action is 'list'.

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 the resource (save snapshots) and enumerates the four operations, so an agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It does not differentiate from the sibling dd2_saveguard, which sounds closely related, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Per-action semantics are spelled out ('backup' = label, 'restore' = snapshot folder, 'touched' = timestamp), and one important precondition (game must be closed for restore) is given. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over dd2_saveguard or when each action is appropriate.

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