Save unit of work

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the conflict check against open projects, the collapsing of many changes into a single saved version, and that the working session remains open afterwards — real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The mid-sentence emphasis formatting is slightly unusual but the content is dense and each sentence carries a distinct fact (action, lifecycle, version semantics).

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain returns. It adequately covers the save semantics, conflict behavior and session lifecycle; only the relationship to sibling save/close/ris-save tools is left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains confirm as 'save despite conflicts'. The description's mention of checking the working copy against open projects gives the conflict notion some context, but adds little beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (checks/writes back a working copy) and resource (the unit of work / resource pool), and adds precise scope details like writing back only once and producing one pool version. It is distinguishable from generic save siblings, though it never names or contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'The unit of work stays open' hints that a different tool (e.g. resource_pool_edit_close) is needed to finish the session, but the description never says when to prefer this save over close, open, or the ris/project save variants. No explicit when-not guidance.

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