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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the return value (new id) and instructs the agent to set source to its own app identity, but omits an idempotency warning (e.g. duplicate saves create separate bubbles), which is a notable gap even with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load purpose and then details. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 simple creation tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering most parameters, the description is mostly complete: it states the return value and gives source/bucket guidance. Missing idempotency context and explicit bucket optionality are minor gaps that structured fields partially cover.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning for `source` (set to the app you are, clarifying the enum choice) and `bucket` (pick by description fit), plus reiterates the title length limit. It does not clarify the optional `label` parameter, which the schema handles.

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 (bubble), and implies creation by saying it returns the new id. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_bubble, which exists as a sibling for editing, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parameter-level guidance (set source to your app identity, choose bucket by description fit), but offers no explicit when-to-use versus update_bubble or other alternatives. Usage is implied by 'save context' rather than spelled out.

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