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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that consent is required, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention if the operation is idempotent or what happens on duplicate saves, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, how program_id works, optional kid_ids with benefit and consent warning. No waste.

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?

Given the two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, parameters, and behavioral constraint (consent). It could mention return value or error cases, but that's not expected without output schema.

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% with good descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining that program_id accepts both UUID and slug (with example), and that kid_ids is for filtering in saved programs and requires consent. This context enriches 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 description clearly states the tool saves a program to the parent's hub, specifies it accepts UUID or slug, and optionally tags kids. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parent_unsave_program and parent_save_daycare.

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 explains when to use the kid_ids parameter and suggests using parent_list_kids for lookup. It also notes consent is required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though siblings imply some context.

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