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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the Plus-plan prerequisite, which an agent cannot see in the schema or annotations. It stops short of warning that repeated calls will create duplicate quotes despite the non-idempotent hint.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the prerequisite. The brevity is efficient, though it leaves the second sentence doing double duty as the only non-obvious fact in the definition.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition is thin: it does not describe return behavior, duplicate handling, or the meaning of the three undocumented optional parameters. The plan requirement is the one piece of real added value, and it does not compensate for the remaining gaps.

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 only 60%, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. It implies that content is the quote and learning_item_id is the reading, but the optional is_favorite, personal_note and chapter_or_position fields are left entirely to the schema, with the latter three carrying no schema descriptions.

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?

"Garder une citation d'une lecture" gives a specific verb (garder/save) and resource (a quote belonging to a reading), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from neighbouring tools such as dandori_save_learning_item or dandori_add_list_item, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 only conditional information is "Plan Plus requis", which is an entitlement gate rather than tool-selection guidance. Nothing says when to attach a quote here versus creating or updating a learning item, nor what happens if the same quote is added twice.

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