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 of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that saving over an existing name replaces it, and that omitting 'items' snapshots the current windows. It also links to get_state for listing saved workspaces. Although it doesn't mention permissions or irreversible side effects beyond replacement, it covers the essential mutating behavior adequately.

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 the purpose, followed by usage modes and key behaviors. It consists of four focused sentences without any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence adds value: definition, usage modes, overwriting behavior, and discoverability via get_state. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of the items structure and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential concepts: what a workspace is, how to specify it or snapshot it, replacement behavior, and where it appears in get_state. It does not detail error conditions or all sub-properties, but the schema handles those. The description is complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'items' parameter by clarifying its purpose ('Pass items to describe the arrangement') and the alternative of omitting it, which is not fully evident from the schema alone. It does not explicitly discuss 'move_existing', but the schema provides a clear description for that parameter. With schema coverage at 67%, the description compensates for the missing top-level items description, making parameter semantics effective.

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's purpose: 'Save a workspace' with a detailed definition of what a workspace includes (apps, window placement, and content to open). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling save tools like save_layout and save_zone_set by specifying the resource and scope. The verb 'save' combined with the resource 'workspace' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool and provides two usage modes: passing 'items' to describe the arrangement or omitting them to snapshot the current screen. It also mentions overwriting behavior. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear enough given the sibling set, so it earns a solid score.

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