save_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Force save' implies a mutation, but it doesn't explain side effects, permission requirements, or what 'force' actually does (e.g., overriding dirty flags or lock status). This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and contains zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks critical context. There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not mention return values, success/failure behavior, or what 'force' entails. An agent could not fully assess the tool's impact or prerequisites.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter asset_path, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and neither explains the path format or whether it is project-relative or absolute.

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 'Force save a specific asset' clearly states the action (force save) and the resource (a specific asset). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like save_all or resave_packages, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like 'use when an asset needs to be saved even if unchanged' or how it differs from save_all or resave_packages.

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