save_running_to_startup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the copy but omits important traits: whether the startup config is overwritten, whether the change is reversible, whether confirmation is required, and what side effects occur. It adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It states the action and both endpoints directly.

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?

The absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema reduce the information burden, but the description still omits safety and usage context for a config-persistence operation. An agent can invoke it correctly, yet may not know when it is appropriate relative to siblings.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers the input surface. The baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter details for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 (copy) and the exact resource pair (running configuration to startup configuration), making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like backup_config or sync_snapshot, which an agent might reasonably consider.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. The description never explains when an agent should persist the running config rather than calling backup_config, sync_snapshot, or sync_to_github.

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