save_zone_set

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavior: creation vs replacement, zone constraints (inside screen, overlap allowed), active assignment via screen, gap semantics (own vs default), and existence of built-in sets. No annotations were provided, so the description bears full responsibility, and it meets that responsibility 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, well-organized, and free of fluff. It progresses logically from purpose to zone definition to parameter special cases, covering all essential points without wordiness.

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 complete for its complexity: it covers purpose, parameters, behaviors, and edge cases. No output schema is present, so no return documentation is needed. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the zone coordinate system and overlap rule, clarifies the special meaning of 'screen' (assign and activate) and 'gap' (set or follow default, and omission behavior). This is far more informative than the schema's brief 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's function: 'Create or replace a named zone set used for drag snapping.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on zone sets and provides details about zone coordinates, which 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 implicitly by outlining its purpose (create or replace) and describes special parameter behaviors (screen, gap). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like assign_zone_set, but the name and content make the use case clear enough for an agent to decide.

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