save_graph_template

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

Without annotations, the description takes on full transparency burden. It explains the forced extension behavior and the old_format option, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, if the graph must exist, or any required permissions. It adds value beyond the schema but is not exhaustive.

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 with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 description covers all parameters and the return value. It explains the forced extension behavior and the legacy format. However, it lacks error conditions or preconditions (e.g., graph existence). Given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, it is largely complete.

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 description explicitly lists all three parameters with explanations: graph_name, file_path (with note about Windows/WSL style and forced extension), and old_format (with version info). The schema has no descriptions, so the description fills the gap effectively.

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 a graph as a reusable Origin template (.otpu/.otp). The verb 'save' and resource 'graph' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling export tools by mentioning 'reusable template' and the specific file formats.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_graph or save_project. No when-not-to-use or context-based advice is given.

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