contentrain_vocabulary_save

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the merge behavior, auto-commit to git, and an explicit caution against manual file editing. These add meaningful side-effect context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 concise sentences with the action front-loaded. Each sentence serves a purpose: action, structure, and a critical warning. No fluff or 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?

The description covers purpose, merge behavior, git side-effect, and a caution. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but given the idempotentHint and lack of output schema, the information is sufficient for safe 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 coverage is 100% and already includes a descriptive example for the 'terms' parameter. The description reinforces the nesting and merge semantics but does not introduce new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Add or update canonical vocabulary terms' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the nesting structure, distinguishing this vocabulary-save tool from sibling tools like contentrain_vocabulary_delete and contentrain_content_save.

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 provides clear context for usage: it's a merge operation where omitted terms are untouched, implying incremental updates. It also warns against manual editing of the vocabulary file. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, though the sibling list and tool name make differentiation straightforward.

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