yaaif_platform_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating operation ('save or update') but does not explain whether existing profiles are overwritten, whether 'activate' triggers side effects, how the active client state directory is selected, or what happens on conflict. These are meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, given the tool's parameter complexity, the brevity borders on under-specification, so it is concise but not optimally structured for an agent.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this description is far from complete. It does not explain required parameters, update semantics, return values, error conditions, or side effects. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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% and the description provides no parameter-level semantics. With 13 parameters including required fields like id, oidc_authority, and api_base_url, an agent gets no help understanding what values are expected, how fields relate, or which optional parameters are meaningful for save versus update. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Save or update') and names the resource ('custom platform profile') and target location ('active YAA\F client state directory'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yaaif_platform_list, yaaif_platform_use, and yaaif_platform_export, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yaaif_platform_use or yaaif_platform_export. The description states what the tool does but provides no context about prerequisites, typical invocation scenarios, or cases where a different platform tool should be chosen.

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