rc_save

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the file destinations for each artifact type and the passthrough nature. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return values, but covers the core semantics well.

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 concise and front-loaded with 'PASSTHROUGH MODE ONLY'. Each sentence serves a purpose: scope, usage, type mapping, and exclusions. It is slightly dense but not wasteful, earning a strong score.

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?

With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, types, and destinations. It doesn't explain overwrite behavior or success confirmation, but these are minor for a passthrough save operation. Overall it is quite complete.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context by mapping artifact_type values to concrete paths (prd->rc-method/prds/, etc.) and clarifies that content is the full artifact text. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool saves host-IDE-generated artifacts into the RC Method file structure. It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'PASSTHROUGH MODE ONLY' and naming tools that auto-save, such as rc_define, rc_sequence, and ux_generate.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when the IDE's own AI generated a PRD, UX PRD, or task list') and when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use for artifacts already saved by rc_define, rc_sequence, or ux_generate'). This clearly steers the agent away from redundant usage.

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