save_hull

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: the save location, that the spec is stored as a design of the same name, and the safety guarantee that non-tool vehicles are never overwritten. It doesn't cover permissions, failure modes, or return format, leaving some gaps.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then lists a few parameter notes without padding. The 'as in preview_hull' pointer is efficient, though the parameter section feels lightly sketched rather than fully structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the tool's core purpose is clear. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, leaving three parameters undocumented is a notable gap.

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% across 7 params, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It documents name, overwrite, and design/patch (by reference to preview_hull), but spec, preset, and spec_path are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Save a hull') plus destination and downstream purpose ('into the Stormworks vehicles folder so it can be loaded at a workbench'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like store_design, load_design, and preview_hull.

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?

Explains the overwrite condition (only replaces designs saved by this tool; vehicles not made by this tool are never overwritten) and defers design/patch semantics to preview_hull, implying a preview-then-save workflow. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' or named alternative is given, keeping it below a 5.

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