Save Database

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses a potentially long-running operation ('may take minutes for large DBs'), a specific failure condition (unattached DB unless force=True), and progress notification cadence (every 5s). It also makes the disk-write nature explicit given no destructiveHint/readOnlyHint exists.

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 sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, multi-DB guidance, failure-mode caveat, and progress behavior. The purpose is front-loaded and the length is proportional to the tool's complexity, with no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, duration, failure conditions, and two of four parameters, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, outfile and flags remain unexplained at 0% schema coverage, and with no safety annotations an agent cannot fully predict behavior without opening the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'database' (needed when multiple are open) and 'force' (overrides the attachment requirement), but 'outfile' and 'flags' are never described—a real gap for a save operation where outfile plausibly controls the destination path and flags is entirely opaque.

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 the current database to disk', which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly name sibling distinctions, but a save/persist operation is naturally distinct from siblings like open_database, close_database, list_databases, and execute.

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?

Provides concrete usage conditions: 'Specify *database* when multiple are open' and the force=True escape when the DB is not attached to the current session. This gives an agent actionable guidance on how to call it correctly, though it never explicitly mentions when to prefer an alternative—likely because no sibling performs saving.

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