yaaif_plan_execution_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does state that data is persisted to the active YAA\F client state directory and that the purpose is resume, which is useful. It omits overwrite or replacement semantics, whether an existing slug is updated or rejected, and any requirements about the active client state directory.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. Minor clarity issues such as the awkward 'YAA\F' token and the compact 'for resume' phrasing keep it from a top score.

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?

The tool has five parameters, nested step objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description remains a single sentence. It gives no guidance on required identifiers, optional metadata, or the relationship to the closely named plan_execution_* siblings, so an agent is under-specified when constructing a valid 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only maps to two fields: 'step statuses' (status) and 'result ids' (result_ids). It does not explain slug, spec_id, plan_path, spec_version, or nested step fields like id, tool, arguments, error, and note, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Persist' and a concrete resource ('plan execution checklist'), and adds the storage destination and purpose. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as yaaif_plan_execution_update_step or yaaif_plan_execution_resume, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 resume' gives a clear intended context: save the checklist when execution needs to be continued later. However, no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned; nothing tells an agent to prefer yaaif_plan_execution_update_step for single-step mutations or how save relates to the other plan_execution_* tools. The guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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