sas_viya_save

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is covered. Beyond restating the fields being written, the description says nothing about where settings persist, whether it overwrites prior values, what happens on failure, or any auth requirement for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb first and the affected fields after; no filler. It is efficient, though the enumerated list reads slightly like a field dump rather than oriented guidance.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, an opaque nested settings object at 0% coverage, and no annotation beyond the safety hints, the description leaves too much unresolved: persistence scope, overwrite behavior, success/failure outcomes, and its relation to sas_viya_state are all unstated.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 0%, but the schema is a bare nested object with additionalProperties=true and no documented fields. The description does compensate somewhat by naming the semantic contents of settings (address, compute context, certificate check, libref), though it omits structure and expected value formats.

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 gives a specific verb ('Save') and enumerates the exact settings persisted (address, compute context, certificate check, SingleStore libref), so its purpose is clear. It does not differentiate itself from the adjacent sas_viya_state / sas_viya_sign_in siblings, which is the only gap.

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 no statement of when to use this tool versus sas_viya_state, sas_viya_test, or the sign-in/sign-out siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied from the 'save' verb.

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