Save a kitchen-table session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral details: the name defaults to today's date, and a name collision appends -2 rather than overwriting. This is valuable context beyond a simple save statement, though return values and failure modes are not mentioned.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and optionality, the second covers naming defaults and collision handling. It is front-loaded and 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?

The description covers the core functionality, the required parameter, default behavior, and an edge case. However, with no output schema, it omits any mention of return value or storage location, which is a minor gap for a write operation. Overall, it is largely complete for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, as each parameter has a description. The description restates the TCG Live format for lines and mentions decks are optional, but it adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The default name behavior is also already documented in the schema, so this matches the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Save' to indicate persisting session card lines and optionally built decks as a timestamped JSON record. It clearly identifies the resource and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like session_load and session_list.

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 clearly implies the tool is for saving session data, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like session_load or session_list. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided, yet the primary use case is unambiguous.

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