save_ontology

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that all unsaved modifications are saved, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites without confirmation), error handling, or whether it blocks further editing. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior safely.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no waste.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema. However, the description lacks any mention of return value, success/failure indicators, or lock/blocking behavior. Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but could provide more details on outcomes.

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%, but the description adds critical semantics for the 'path' parameter: it clarifies that leaving it blank overwrites the original file. This additional context aids the agent's decision beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly specifies the action ('save') and the resource ('current ontology with unsaved modifications'). It directly indicates what the tool does, and the verb 'save' differentiates it from sibling tools like load_ontology.

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?

The description does not explicitly provide when to use or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. Usage is implied but not guided; the agent must infer context from the tool's name and description.

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