Save Project to Git

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

Beyond the provided openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral side effects: it creates a new revision, transitions the project to OPENED, requires EDITING status, and supports a one-request save-and-close via closeAfterSave. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's state-changing behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. Each sentence carries essential information: core action, precondition, required parameter, side effects, optional flag, typical usage context, and an exclusion. It is easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 state-changing Git save operation with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: preconditions, required inputs, side effects, optional behavior, typical invocation timing, and a clear limitation. The agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds some reinforcement about 'comment' as the commit message and closeAfterSave behavior, but it does not provide significant meaning beyond what is already in the input schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Save project changes to Git'. It clearly identifies the tool's function and the key behavioral effects (creates a new revision, transitions to OPENED), distinguishing it from related siblings like openl_close_project or openl_open_project.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only when project status is EDITING and after operations like update_table or append_table. It also states when-not-to-use: does not work for repository 'local'. This is strong situational guidance even without naming an alternative tool because this tool is the designated save operation.

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