tc_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: close=true closes the task and rejects further saves. However, for a save/mutation tool with zero annotations, it doesn't mention persistence semantics, error behavior, or what happens on overwrite, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by the important close behavior. Appropriately sized for the tool's role, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

With 10 parameters, 70% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is thin. It captures the core purpose and the close semantics but omits context around the step-save workflow (e.g., what constitutes a valid step, interaction with active task selection) that would help an agent invoke it correctly. The output schema reduces the return-format burden, but the overall guidance is minimal.

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 70% with 10 parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the close parameter's behavioral effect (closes task, no further saves), which goes beyond the bare boolean schema type. However, it doesn't address the undocumented parameters (verified, open_questions, paths constraint) beyond what the schema's descriptions provide.

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 states a specific action ('保存一个任务层步骤' – save a task-layer step) with a clear verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like tc_capture, tc_init, and tc_switch, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative. The close=true semantic adds useful context to the purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (tc_capture, tc_restore, tc_compress, etc.). The only behavioral note is the close=true behavior, which is a parameter effect rather than usage guidance. An agent gets no direction on choosing this tool over alternatives.

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