save_macro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates create/update but does not explain update semantics (overwrite vs merge), permissions, side effects, error scenarios, or return behavior. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 clauses long and immediately communicates the core action and step types. There is no filler, and the most important information 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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any schema descriptions, the description is too thin for a tool with a nested steps structure. It leaves the agent without guidance on constructing valid steps or understanding update behavior, making the tool materially incomplete.

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 only hints at step types. It does not explain the meaning of `name`, `steps`, `description`, or the individual step fields (ms, cwd, keys, command, timeoutMs). The description provides minimal value over the raw 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 clearly states the action ('Create or update'), the resource ('macro'), and the supported step types ('sleep, sendKeys, command'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_macros and run_macro, which have different verbs and purposes.

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 macros, and the sibling names suggest list/run/capture/diagnose contexts. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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