geck_save_active_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the mechanism (menu command File > Save) and that it returns plugin status, but it does not mention potential side effects (saving is inherently destructive to any unsaved changes), prerequisites (active plugin must exist), configuration accepted (wait_seconds), or failure behavior. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main verb, and contains no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and result in a clear, efficient manner.

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 description covers the primary action and return value, and an output schema exists, so return details need not be repeated. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics and minimal usage guidance means the description is not fully self-sufficient. An agent could invoke the tool with defaults, but would struggle to configure behavior intentionally.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the three parameters (backend, game_dir, wait_seconds). The agent is left to infer semantics from names and defaults alone, which is insufficient for customizing invocation. This is a significant gap for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Save'), resource ('active GECK plugin'), method ('through File > Save'), and return value ('plugin status'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like geck_plugin_status (which reads status) and geck_backup_plugin (which creates backups rather than saving).

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 makes the basic use case obvious—save the active plugin—but does not provide any explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than stated, so an agent might not know when to prefer this over backup or transaction tools.

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