mm_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: unsandboxed execution, tests-are-not-security-reviews caveat, exit-0-passes semantics, MM_SCRIPT/MM_LIBRARY injection, transactional behavior (failed new personal test saves nothing; replacement restores prior files), and commit/push policy split by scope. Remaining gaps are what the tool returns and what permissions/auth are needed.

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?

It is front-loaded and dense with no filler sentences, but it is written as a chain of telegraphic fragments ('Personal commits, and pushes if chosen at setup; project never commits') that are hard to parse. Given 11 parameters and irreversible semantics, the length is defensible, but structure could group save behavior, execution behavior, and scope rules.

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 mutating, code-executing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risky parts an agent must know: sandboxing, untrusted-library behavior, rollback on test failure, and commit/push scope rules. It is not fully complete — return values and the mm_run boundary are unaddressed — but an agent could call it correctly from this text.

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 100%, so a 3 is the baseline; the description earns above that by explaining the relationship the schema cannot — tests default to the script runner/extension unless test_name/test_runner override, and replace must be set to true for an existing name. Some parameters (runner vs test_runner, new_area, scope) still get no clarification beyond their one-line schema text.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb+resource: save reusable code and execute its test, with the important qualifier that execution is unsandboxed. It stops short of distinguishing the tool from mm_run (which also executes code) or mm_list/mm_setup, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is one real exclusion — in an untrusted project library, nothing is written or run, ask the user — and a conditional ('Existing names: replace: true'). But there is no explicit statement of when to call mm_save versus mm_run or mm_setup, and no prerequisites for the area/scope selection beyond the schema's own wording.

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