graphic_save

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

Annotations already signal the tool is destructive and idempotent. The description adds critical behavioral context by specifying that 'the page and its phases are saved; the frames are not,' explaining a non-obvious limitation. It also clarifies the persistence model ('every project can load it'), which is valuable beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (four parameters, all documented) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is saved, where, and the key limitation. It does not describe when to use it over siblings, but that is partially covered by the purpose. The description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly without missing critical details.

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 100% and each parameter has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about parameter usage beyond what the schema already documents. It does not, for instance, explain how the 'name' parameter relates to the 'as_name' override or how 'replace' interacts with existing records.

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 purpose: 'Save an animated graphic to this machine's library' – a specific verb (save), resource (graphic), and destination (library). It also adds a clarifying detail about what is saved (page and phases) versus what is not (frames), which distinguishes it from other graphic tools and gives a precise scope.

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 when to use the tool (to persist a graphic for reuse across projects) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools like graphic_new or graphic_load, leaving the agent to infer context. The caveat about frames suggests a use case but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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