tech_save

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 only states the action 'Guarda' (saves) and clarifies the project parameter, without mentioning whether it overwrites existing entries, requires prior initialization, has side effects, or how it interacts with other tech_* tools. Behavior beyond the basic save action is opaque.

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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the project parameter rule second. Each sentence earns its place and there is no filler, though the brevity leaves substantial semantic gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the two-sentence description is under-specified. It explains only one parameter and omits usage context, return behavior, and relationships to sibling tools, leaving an agent to guess most of the input contract.

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 every parameter required explanation. The description only clarifies 'project' as basename del repo (D13, R8) and generically calls the content an observation/message. The remaining eight parameters (type, files, status, summary, repo_path, next_steps, session_id) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Guarda' (saves) and identifies the resource as 'una observación/mensaje' (an observation/message), making the core action clear. The reference to 'mem_save' provides a familiar analog, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish tech_save from siblings like tech_update or the personal_* tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use tech_save versus alternatives such as tech_update, tech_get, or personal_add_reflection. The reference to mem_save implies an analogous use case but does not state conditions, exclusions, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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