save_database_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool saves data to state, implying persistence, but doesn't clarify if this is a write operation, what permissions are needed, whether it overwrites existing data, or how errors are handled. This is inadequate for a tool with mutation implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand the core purpose immediately.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and poor schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, and behavioral context, making it insufficient for fully informed tool selection.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'models' as an array of objects. The description mentions 'table schemas (fields, types, relationships)' but doesn't explain how this maps to the 'models' parameter, leaving semantics vague and failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Saves') and the resource ('table schemas') with specific attributes ('fields, types, relationships') and destination ('to state'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'save_roles_plan' by specifying the type of data being saved, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_organization_context' or 'save_roles_plan'. The description implies it's for saving database schemas but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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