save_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behaviors: saving over an existing name replaces it, and saved workspaces appear in get_state with full contents. Yet it does not mention move_existing behavior or other potential side effects/permissions.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage options and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value without fluff, and it is easy to scan.

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 save tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main conceptual points: what a workspace includes, how to define or snapshot it, replacement behavior, and integration with get_state. It is slightly light on edge cases but generally complete for its complexity.

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 67%. The description adds meaningful context for 'name' (replaces existing) and 'items' (describes arrangement or snapshot). The 'move_existing' parameter is only covered by the schema, but the description partially compensates for the gap.

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 identifies the tool's function: saving a workspace with apps, window positions, and app-specific content. It distinguishes itself by focusing on 'workspace' rather than just layout, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like save_layout.

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?

It provides clear usage context by explaining the two modes: providing 'items' for manual arrangement or omitting them to snapshot the current screen. It also notes that saving over an existing name replaces it. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative save tools.

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