quick_save

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ('cheap'), the side effect of overwriting/creating a save, and the practical consequence tied to crash recovery. It doesn't state where the save lands or whether it overwrites an existing slot, but the key behavior is conveyed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its game equivalent, followed by the usage rule and rationale. No filler.

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 zero-arg, no-output tool with no annotations, the description covers action, equivalence, cost, and the triggering conditions that make the tool useful. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

Zero parameters; baseline is 4, and the description goes further by mapping the tool to the in-game F5 binding, which is the only 'parameter-like' information relevant here.

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 (save) and resource (the game), with the exact in-game equivalent (Quick Save / F5). No sibling tool in the list does this specific action, so it's clearly distinguished.

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?

Explicitly names when to call it: after anything costly (founding a city, policy/research choice, before combat), rather than periodically, with a stated reason (crashes lose everything back to autosave). This is unusually actionable.

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