fscp_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It thoroughly discloses that the source file is never touched, existing files at out_path are overwritten only when overwrite=true, untouched records are copied byte-for-byte, and an integrity check runs before writing (disabled via check=false). This is comprehensive transparency for a mutating operation.

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 three sentences: first states purpose and source safety, second details copying behavior, third explains integrity check. Each sentence adds essential information with no fluff, and the primary purpose is 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 description covers core mechanics (source untouched, overwrite flag, integrity check) but leaves gaps: what 'handle' refers to, behavior when the target exists and overwrite=false, and error conditions. Since the tool likely requires an opened session, omitting handle context is notable. However, the presence of an output schema (not shown) may reduce the need to describe return values, so the description is fairly complete for a save operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains out_path (new file), overwrite (existing file behavior), and check (integrity check disabling), but does not explain what 'handle' refers to. Since handle is a required parameter and not described in the schema, the agent lacks crucial context about its purpose, leaving a significant gap.

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 saves a configuration with edits to a NEW .fscp file, explicitly noting the source is never touched. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fscp_open, fscp_close, and fscp_revert by specifying the exact verb (save), resource (configuration with edits), and target (new .fscp file).

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 the tool is for saving edited configurations to a new file and clarifies overwrite and integrity check behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like fscp_create or fscp_revert. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., an open handle) are mentioned, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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