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 explains the behavioral differences between 'ui' and 'api' formats, overwrite semantics, scope options, and the nature of the reply ('a path and a few numbers'). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a save operation this is adequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The opening sentence states the core action, followed by rationale, then a structured Args list. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, use cases, format distinctions, scope, overwrite, and even the response shape. It also relates to sibling tools (run_workflow, describe_workflow) to ground its context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly with an Args section explaining each parameter: 'name' (file name), 'format' (ui vs api with detailed consequences), 'scope' (root vs active), 'overwrite' (replace file), and 'client_id' (which tab to ask). This adds meaning far beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write the workflow open in the browser to a file.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like load_workspace and open_workspace. The additional context about handling large graphs further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 use cases ('This is how to get at a graph too large to fit in one answer' and 'how an unsaved canvas becomes something that survives the tab being closed'). It also explains format-specific destinations, implicitly guiding when to use 'ui' vs 'api' in relation to run_workflow and describe_workflow. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but context is strong.

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