save_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the write profile is partly covered; the description adds real value beyond that with 'Existing snapshot files in the directory may be overwritten' and the version-coupling caveat. It also discloses that the return includes the saved path, which matters since no output schema exists. Minor gap: it doesn't state auth/permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the trigger, then the caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information (purpose, when, side effects/compat) 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?

For a one-parameter write tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers trigger, overwrite risk, version compatibility, and the return path even though no output schema exists. Only permission/error behavior is left 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'directory' as the local destination for naja-if and metadata files. The description's 'local directory' wording only marginally reinforces this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Write the active design and source metadata to a local directory') with the purpose ('for fast reload'). It explicitly names its counterpart 'load_snapshot reads the result', so an agent can distinguish it from the load_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Use after loading a design') and names the complementary tool that consumes the output. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., prior to loading) or whether it can be re-run mid-edit, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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