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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds the auth requirement, which is genuine context beyond annotations. It does not disclose duplicate-handling behavior implied by idempotentHint=false, which would have been valuable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a bracketed precondition; no wasted words. Appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

The output schema handles return values, so those needn't be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage and rich sibling tooling, the description is thin on relationships to remove_saved/list_saved and on what 'ref' should look like.

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 0%, so the description carries the load. It explains the two kinds (article vs verse), mapping to the 'kind' enum, and 'path' hints at the ref format. But the exact shape/format of 'ref' for each kind remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (article path or Bible verse path) scoped to the signed-in account. This is clear enough to distinguish from list_saved and remove_saved by name, though the description itself does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 bracketed '[sign-in required]' acts as a useful precondition, implying usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to save versus alternatives like suggest_article_change or propose_new_article, and no mention of how it relates to remove_saved/list_saved.

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