Save a conversion as a file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write-to-disk nature is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether an existing file is overwritten, where the file lands by default beyond what save_to already documents, or what the call returns. The only content beyond the first sentence is the format list, which is already in the schema.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and does real work. The second sentence is a long enumeration of format meanings copied wholesale from the schema's enum description, so half the description does not earn its place.

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 4-parameter file-export tool with no output schema, the description covers the required format parameter but says nothing about what a successful save returns (a path? a URL?) or the effect of the optional tables/save_to parameters. The schema carries those details, but the description is thin on the outcome of the call.

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 four parameters (format, tables, save_to, conversion_id) are documented in the schema. The description's format sentence is a verbatim duplicate of the schema's enum description, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (an earlier BankConv conversion as a file), which separates it from convert_statement, which creates a conversion. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, but the word 'earlier' makes the dependency clear.

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?

'An earlier BankConv conversion' implies a prior conversion must exist and that a conversion_id is needed, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus convert_statement (exporting vs creating) and no guidance on when a given format is preferred.

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