vro_save_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the ES5/Rhino runtime constraint, that omitted inputs/returnType are preserved on update, and the versioning policy (new = 1.0.0, patch bump unless version/bump given). It does not cover permissions, atomicity, or what the call returns, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, each with a distinct payload (purpose, script constraint, update merge, versioning), and the primary create/update intent is front-loaded. Parenthetical examples are compact and useful.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operational essentials an agent needs (upsert key, script dialect, merge behavior, versioning). It leaves out permission requirements and the failure/return shape, which would be nice but are secondary.

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 only 50%, so description additions matter: it constrains script to plain ES5 (a real correctness rule absent from the schema) and clarifies preservation semantics for inputs/returnType plus version/bump behavior. It does not resolve module/name formats beyond 'upsert by module/name', but that plus the schema examples is adequate.

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 (create/update, i.e. upsert) and resource (action), with the keying scheme (module/name) that defines identity. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like vro_get_action and vro_run_action.

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 implies when it applies (new action vs update, keyed on module/name) and notes update-time merge behavior, but names no alternatives or when-not conditions. An agent must infer that vro_get_action/delete workflows are the other routes. Implied usage only.

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