intent_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action, omitting details about file overwriting, permissions, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the action and context. There is no extraneous information, and the most critical details are front-loaded.

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 tool is relatively complex with a deeply nested spec object, yet the description is only two sentences. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, or behavior when the file already exists. Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves the agent with insufficient context for safe invocation.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (spec and path), so the description adds little extra semantic value. It reinforces that the spec is built through conversation and that the default path is intent.md, which is helpful but not essential beyond the schema.

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 action: saving an intent spec to a file (intent.md). It also provides context on when it is used ('after building a spec through conversation'), distinguishing it from general intent creation or update operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `create_intent` or `update_intent`, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 implies usage in a specific workflow phase ('Called after building a spec through conversation'), giving some guidance on timing. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use `update_intent` instead). This leaves the agent with limited direction for tool selection.

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