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

The annotations only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint: false, etc.), so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a write operation ('Save') and adds valuable detail about the response, including the stored id, detected variables, and updated clause count. It does not discuss duplicate handling or quota failures, but the free-tier note appears in the schema.

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 a single dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently covers return value details that would otherwise be missing without an output schema.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description plus the detailed input schema provide enough context to call the tool correctly. The description usefully fills the output gap by naming the returned fields. A small omission is the lack of guidance about alternative tools, but that does not block correct invocation.

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 86%, and the schema already provides rich parameter explanations, such as {{variable}} placeholders, known category names, and auto-detection of variables. The tool-level description adds little parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the detail.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Save') and identifies the exact resource: a reusable contract or proposal clause stored in a library. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like clause_update and clause_delete, and from contract_assemble, by focusing on adding to the library.

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 the tool is for adding a new reusable clause, which is clear enough context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as clause_update for modifying an existing clause, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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