hcl_save_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new facts — that it verifies staged identity before writing, and that it parses files after saving — but leaves 'write-gated' undefined and does not say whether an existing save is overwritten or what happens on verification failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action sequence in execution order with no filler. It is dense — three clauses plus a parenthetical — but nothing is redundant.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, the description should explain the gating condition, overwrite behavior, and what the post-save parsing produces. None of that is present, leaving an agent likely to call it without understanding the precondition or the side effects.

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% for both required parameters; hcl_pid and project_path have no descriptions at all. The description mentions 'active staged project identity' but never explains how project_path and hcl_pid relate to that identity or what format hcl_pid takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific compound action (verify identity, save, parse saved files) on a named resource (the active staged project), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hcl_open_project, hcl_inspect_project, or hcl_backup_config. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, and 'verify identity' remains somewhat opaque.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus hcl_open_project, hcl_backup_config, or hcl_full_build, nor any prerequisites (e.g. must a project be staged first, must it be validated). The parenthetical '(write-gated)' hints at a precondition but is never unpacked.

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