save_file_version

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. 'Save a version snapshot' conveys a non-destructive write and the rollback purpose adds context, but it does not mention that the provided content is stored as the snapshot, whether the live file is untouched, or what response is returned. It is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler; the main verb, object, and purpose are front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 3-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the action and purpose, but leaves ambiguity about the role of the content parameter and return behavior. Sibling tools exist for listing and restoring versions, but the description doesn't connect to them.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds no additional parameter-level details. It only reinforces that content is saved as a snapshot, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save'), a concrete object ('a version snapshot of a CMS file'), and the purpose ('for rollback'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like restore_file_version, get_file_versions, and update_cms_file.

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 tool should be used to create a recovery point before changes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_cms_file or when to use get_file_versions/restore_file_version with it. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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