save_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the side effect (writes JSON to disk), that the domain determines the filename, and that output_dir defaults to 'output/structured'. It does not state overwrite/merge behavior or error handling for a failed write, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by compact Args/Returns blocks. The parameter restatement duplicates the schema somewhat, but given 0% schema coverage it earns its place rather than being waste.

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 simple 3-parameter write tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies the missing parameter semantics and the disk-write side effect. Only edge-case behavior (overwriting an existing file, invalid JSON handling) is absent.

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 must compensate, and it does: all three parameters are explained, including the example domain format, the JSON-string nature of profile_json, and the default output_dir value. Only the filename derivation detail ('used as filename') is partially specified.

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 (institution profile) with format (JSON) and destination (disk). The word 'validated' implicitly routes to the sibling validate_profile, giving partial sibling differentiation, though it never names it explicitly.

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 adjective 'validated' implies the profile must pass validate_profile first, which is useful implied context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no failure path guidance, and no mention of what happens if an unvalidated profile is passed.

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