save_set

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the API support is conditional ('if the Live API supports it (it does not on most versions)') and explains the return behavior (whether the API call is available and whether the save succeeded). This provides critical behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds essential nuance and an alternative. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: the action, the API limitation, the return values, and an alternative. It is complete and informative.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description naturally has no parameter information. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description implicitly clarifies that no parameters are needed because it saves the current set.

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 tool saves the current Live set to its existing file, with the verb 'save' and resource 'current Live set'. It distinguishes from saving under a new name by referencing the GUI Save-As, which differentiates it from any sibling tools that might handle save operations.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to save to the current file) and provides an alternative for saving with a new name/path ('use the GUI Save-As'). This is clear guidance on when to use versus not use this tool.

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