save_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the storage path (~/.simlab/plans), the naming scheme (layout plan:<name>), the validation constraints (at least 3x3, at least one free cell), and the overwrite refusal behavior. It omits permission requirements and return values, but the mutation/refusal semantics are clearly stated.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the format legend and constraints without filler. It is slightly overloaded, merging format spec, storage path, and overwrite rule into one clause chain.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers storage location, naming, input format, validation, and overwrite behavior. Return-value details are not needed since there is no output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters and largely does: text is specified via the ASCII legend (# wall, D door, . free) plus size constraints, name via the layout naming scheme, and overwrite via the refusal-unless-true rule. Only minor format/edge details are left implicit.

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: saving an ASCII floor plan, plus the storage location and the resulting layout name. It distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like list_plans and from save_experiment, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 only usage condition given is implicit in the overwrite rule ('a shipped plan's name is refused unless overwrite is true'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives, so the agent must infer the context.

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