save_image

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context: the output path restriction and the format/bit_depth rules. It does not disclose overwrite behavior or what happens if the file exists without overwrite=true, which is a significant gap for a save 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence provides specific, non-redundant information: the action, format rules, bit_depth restriction, and a critical path constraint. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers some important behaviors (format, bit_depth, output location) but leaves gaps: the meaning of id, overwrite semantics, and what happens when format is omitted or conflicts with the extension. It is adequately informative but not fully complete.

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 only 20% (only path has a description). The description adds meaning for format (extension-based) and bit_depth (8/16 for tif/png), partially compensating for the schema gap. However, it does not explain the id parameter or overwrite semantics, leaving key parameters 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a view to disk.' This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like save_project (which saves a project) and open_image (which loads). It is not a vague or tautological description.

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 description gives practical guidance on format selection and a path constraint ('Output must be under the workdir, never in source folders'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like save_project or checkpoint, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.

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