save_experiment

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

No annotations, so description carries the burden. It discloses important behavior: validation rules, the command runs on the person's machine with their rights, and overwrite semantics for shipped experiments. Lacks details on return value or side effects beyond file creation, but covers key safety aspects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core action, followed by validation rules and safety/overwrite details. Efficient, though slightly dense with parentheticals.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: validation, safety, overwrite behavior, and scope. It misses explicit mention of return value or pagination but that's acceptable. Overall, an agent would understand how to use it correctly.

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%, but the description explains semantic meaning for 'name' (refused for shipped unless overwrite true), 'yaml' (validated structure), and 'overwrite' (replaces file for later runs). However, it doesn't fully document the format or constraints of each parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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+resource: 'Save an experiment YAML'. It clarifies the scope ('of the person's own') and location ('~/.simlab/experiments'). This distinguishes it from siblings like save_plan or run_experiment, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Implies usage when the person wants to save an experiment, and includes a safety caution ('only save a command the person asked for'). But it doesn't compare or contrast directly with sibling tools like save_plan or get_experiment; no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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