Save the IDB database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the loose working-file backing, the corruption risk from killing files (issues #446/#498), the deliberate refusal to use DBFL_KILL, and the differing behavior of in-place vs. new-destination saves. It still omits permission/auth requirements and any note about locking or reopen behavior.

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 core action is front-loaded in one short sentence, and the behavioral detail follows. The second sentence is long and leans on parenthetical issue numbers, but every clause conveys actionable behavior rather than filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and both parameters plus the save semantics are covered. The one real gap is disambiguation from the sibling save_database, which leaves an agent's tool-selection decision under-informed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by attaching mode semantics to 'path': empty means an in-place native save, a non-default value yields a compressed copy while working files are retained. The 'instance_id' parameter is left to the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Save active IDB to disk, optionally to a provided path'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it never acknowledges the near-identical sibling 'save_database', so an agent cannot distinguish the two from this definition alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description explains what happens with an in-place save versus an explicit destination, which helps the agent choose a parameter value, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over save_database, close_database, or open_database, and states no prerequisites.

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