save_zone_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool can replace existing sets, uses top-left origin and fractional coordinates, enforces zones staying inside the screen, allows overlapping with a tie-breaking rule, and that passing 'screen' activates the set immediately. These details go far beyond the schema.

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 but information-dense. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of essential information: purpose, zone format and constraints, activation behavior, and existing built-in sets. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses clear, structured prose without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (nested zones, coordinate system, validation, overlap rules, monitor assignment), the description covers all critical aspects. It explains the behavior of each parameter and the outcome of the operation sufficiently well for an agent to use it correctly, even without an output schema.

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 rich meaning to the 'zones' parameter by explaining the format {x,y,w,h}, the fraction range, origin, containment rule, and the 'smallest wins' overlap behavior, which is not evident from the schema. It also clarifies the 'screen' parameter's effect of immediate activation, going beyond the schema's 'Monitor index to assign this set to.'

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: 'Create or replace a named zone set used for drag snapping.' The verb 'create or replace' with the resource 'named zone set' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_zone_set or delete_zone_set.

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 solid context for when to use the tool, such as explaining the coordinate system, overlap behavior, and how to activate a set via the 'screen' parameter. It mentions built-in sets that already exist, implying users may not need to recreate them, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like assign_zone_set for assigning an existing set.

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