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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the daily quota cost, the synchronous scrape-if-unknown step, asynchronous background analysis, and where the result surfaces afterwards. These are exactly the side-effect details an agent needs for a non-read-only, open-world tool.

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?

Three tight sentences plus a doc link. The primary effect is front-loaded, followed by quota and async caveats, with no wasted prose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explains what becomes available after the call (reference plus analysis status in the library), plus the quota constraint. Only minor gaps remain, chiefly the undocumented note/brandId parameters and how the async analysis is later polled.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the accepted URL types for 'url' but says nothing about 'note' or 'brandId', leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (save) and resource (TikTok/Instagram video or creator profile URL) as a brand reference, and names the resulting artifact ('saved-reference library'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like save_catalog_video and attach_content_reference.

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?

Gives useful operating context (scrapes if unknown, analysis runs in background, consumes the 30/day quota), but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as save_catalog_video or attach_content_reference. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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