save_guide_itemRequires member:write. Save a current public guide item to the connected member account. The item is re-resolved server-side before saving.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guide | Yes | ||
| dataPolicy | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so safety is covered; the description adds two things annotations cannot: the required scope (member:write) and the server-side re-resolution of the item before saving. It still omits failure modes (item no longer public, stale id) that would push it higher.
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 short sentences with the auth requirement front-loaded and no filler. Slightly terse for the amount of behavior being described, but nothing is wasted.
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 2-param mutation tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is saved, where it goes, and the auth requirement. The main remaining gap is parameter meaning and error conditions, which is minor given the structured metadata available.
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?
Both parameters are required with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the explanatory burden, yet it never says what 'id' refers to or why 'type' spans event/session/person/company/food. The phrase 'guide item' and the re-resolution note hint that id is a reference rather than a snapshot, but the semantics are largely undocumented.
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 concrete verb+resource ('Save a current public guide item to the connected member account'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_saved_guide_item and save_itinerary. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, 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?
'Requires member:write' plus 'current public guide item' implies the preconditions (member auth, item must exist and be public), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as get_guide_item or remove_saved_guide_item. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.