cw_save_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the check is read from the title's modified marker and implies a boolean query, but it does not explain the return value, side effects, permissions, or whether the marker can be stale.

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 short and front-loads the core condition. The phrase 'in the terms that matter before closing or opening something else' is slightly vague but still adds useful context without excess.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the data source but not the return shape or how the result should be interpreted. Given the many state-related siblings, it also does not provide enough routing information to confidently choose this tool over cw_get_state, cw_document_state, or cw_status.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The schema is empty and fully self-explanatory, making the baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the specific condition being queried: whether the open project has unsaved changes, and it names the data source (the title's modified marker). It does not distinguish this tool from state-related siblings such as cw_get_state or cw_document_state, and the tool name 'cw_save_state' could be misread as a write operation, though the description clarifies it is a read check.

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 gives implied usage context: checking before closing or opening something else. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool or exclusion condition.

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