sdd_save

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds the context that it records a phase transition, which is useful, but it does not explain what the phase transition means, how validation failures are handled, or whether an existing contract is replaced. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, no redundant fluff, front-loaded with the core action ('validate and persist') and a secondary traceability detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 write tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this description is too shallow. It doesn't explain critical parameters like submitted_digest, expected_head_revision, or coordination_mode, nor what the response or side effects look like. The phase transition mention is vague without further context.

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 only 11%, with only the 'contract' parameter described. The description adds no meaning for the other 8 parameters (actor, api_version, schema_version, idempotency_key, submitted_digest, coordination_mode, parent_contract_id, expected_head_revision). It merely restates that an SDD contract is being saved, which is already evident from the schema.

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 states the tool validates and persists an SDD contract, and adds that it records the phase transition for project traceability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdd_validate (validation only) and sdd_get/sdd_list (read operations).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sdd_validate for validation-only flows or sdd_get/sdd_list for reading contracts. The intended usage is implied but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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