athena_save_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it persists a query under the caller's user and scopes to a workspace, which implies a write operation, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing queries, uniqueness constraints), permission requirements, or failure modes. This is minimal for a mutating tool.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence describing the action followed by a compact argument list. Every word serves a purpose, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about uniqueness rules, whether saving overwrites existing queries, or any prerequisites. It also does not differentiate from the similar db_save_query sibling, leaving an agent to infer the difference. For a persistence operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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%, and the description compensates by providing clear meanings for all three parameters: workspace_id, name, and sql. Each parameter is described with its purpose and relationship to the saved query, which is meaningful beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clear action: 'Persist a SQL query' with scoping to user and workspace. It's specific enough to distinguish from running a query, but it does not name any sibling tools, so it relies on the verb to differentiate (e.g., from athena_run_query).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like athena_run_query or db_save_query. The usage is implied by the 'persist' action, but there is no explicit 'use for saving, not executing' or comparison with siblings. An agent would infer the purpose from context.

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