Save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the critical overwrite behavior and the non-destructive copy/export behavior, which are the main things an agent needs to know. It does not mention error handling or what happens with a new path, but it covers the most consequential behaviors.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the conditional behaviors are presented in a clear, compact structure.

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?

For a simple two-parameter save tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: when to overwrite and when to export a copy. It could clarify whether copy mode requires a path, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 only 50% because copy has no schema-level description. The description compensates by explaining that copy=true exports a copy, and that omitting path overwrites the existing file. This adds real meaning to both parameters beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Saves the active sprite.' It also distinguishes the two main behaviors (overwrite existing file vs. export a copy), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from sibling tools like open, draw, or clear.

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 clear context: use this tool to save the active sprite, with no path meaning overwrite and with copy=true meaning export a copy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool serves the save/export role, so this is sufficiently clear.

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