save_file_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, telling the agent this is an additive, non-destructive write. The description adds the useful semantic that the write is a rollback-able snapshot rather than a live edit. It does not disclose permissions needed, whether repeated calls create duplicate versions, or what is returned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and purpose are all conveyed without redundancy.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it does not mention what a saved version yields (e.g., a version identifier) or how it relates to restore_file_version, but no output schema exists so return detail is optional.

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 100%, so all three parameters (content, is_public, cms_file_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the full load.

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), resource (a CMS file version snapshot), and intent (for rollback), so the agent understands this is a snapshot-writing operation. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (restore_file_version, update_cms_file, create_cms_file), so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 phrase 'for rollback' implies the usage context — capture a snapshot before changes so it can be restored later — which gestures at the sibling restore_file_version. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when this should be preferred over update_cms_file or create_cms_file.

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