save_source_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories must already exist, whether the source must be active/visible, or what the return value will be. The parameter ranges for width/height and compression quality are useful, but they do not address the tool's overall behavior and potential failure modes.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list. Each argument gets a brief, focused explanation without unnecessary detail. The format is easy to scan and does not waste words.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters and the core action well. However, it omits information about the return value or response, and does not address error conditions or file-overwrite behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, a brief note on what to expect would improve completeness, but the existing content is largely sufficient for basic invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: source_name is explained, image_file_path includes an example, image_format lists examples, image_width/image_height describes scale-to-fit with bounds, and image_compression_quality explains the numeric range and default. Every parameter is given meaningful semantics beyond its schema title.

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's purpose: 'Save a screenshot of a source (input or scene) directly to disk.' It uses a specific verb (Save), identifies the resource (source input/scene), and specifies the outcome (directly to disk). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_source_screenshot, which likely retrieves image data rather than saving to a 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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_source_screenshot or any other sibling, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is the phrase 'directly to disk,' which implies a use case but does not explain when this is the right choice over other screenshot-related tools.

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