save_for_laterPut a link or a note into the read-later queue: whatever lands there is guaranteed to be covered in the next briefing. The page is fetched and its text stored, so it can be summarised even if the site later blocks access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | The link to save | |
| text | No | Alternative to url: a free-text note to keep | |
| title | No | Optional title for a text note |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'The page is fetched and its text stored, so it can be summarised even if the site later blocks access.' This discloses a non-obvious behavior and benefit. Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) without contradiction.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. The second sentence explains a key behavioral detail without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence contributes to understanding.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, input types, and what happens to the saved item. Minor gaps exist, such as not clarifying whether url and text are mutually exclusive or if at least one is required, but annotations and schema partially compensate.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates the two modes (url or text) but does not add format, constraints, or interaction details. The optional title is already described in 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 action ('Put a link or a note into the read-later queue') and the resource/outcome ('whatever lands there is guaranteed to be covered in the next briefing'). It differentiates from sibling tools like add_feed and create_source by focusing on a one-off read-later queue rather than persistent sources.
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 implies usage context (items to be covered in the next briefing) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. Sibling tools suggest related but distinct use cases, yet the description relies on the agent to infer the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct operations (e.g., add_feed vs. remove_feed, get_source vs. list_sources). However, there is some ambiguity between correct_briefing and tune_topic (both adjust content based on user feedback) and between request_deep_dive and correct_briefing (both can trigger deeper investigation). The descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.
Tool names follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_feed, create_source, generate_briefing, list_sources). All use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.
With 27 tools, the server covers a rich domain of news feed management, briefing generation, and user preferences. This is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still reasonable given the complexity. Each tool serves a distinct purpose; the count is justified.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: sources can be created, read, updated, and deleted; feeds and searches can be added and removed; briefings can be generated, listed, read, rated, and corrected; deep dives and read-later items are supported. There are no obvious gaps—the domain is thoroughly covered.