save_board

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating/destructive operation, and the description adds that it persists edits to disk so file-based tools see them. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, whether saves are reversible, or what happens when path is omitted. The description does not contradict the annotations.

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 with the action front-loaded and the rationale in a short dependent clause. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 is adequate for a simple save operation and correctly ties the tool to downstream file-based siblings. However, the meaning of the path parameter is left undocumented, and the destructive behavior is only signaled by annotations rather than explained in prose. Output schema presence reduces the need to describe return values.

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 never mentions the sole path parameter. An agent cannot determine whether path specifies a destination file, is optional, or what the null default means. The tool's only parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 action and object: 'Save the open board to disk'. It also clarifies the purpose—making edits visible to file-based tools like measure, drc, and render—which distinguishes this persistence action from the many read-only or in-memory sibling tools.

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 when to call this tool: after editing the board and before invoking file-based tools such as measure, drc, or render. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but there are no obvious competing save tools among the siblings.

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