save_document

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the document becomes a node, content is stored, and linking to entities is possible. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the behavioral impact (a write operation with persistence). It does not contradict any annotations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, bullet-pointed use cases, behavioral details, and an example. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

Given the four parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough context about what the tool does and how to use it. The example and usage guidelines make it complete for an agent, though a note about return values (e.g., created node ID) could enhance completeness slightly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds context (e.g., that doc_type defaults to 'note', and relates_to expects node IDs/names) and provides an example, but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 the verb and resource: 'Store a document or artifact as a node in the knowledge graph.' It lists specific use cases (ADRs, postmortems, etc.) and provides an example, making the purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'describe' which have different purposes.

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 explicitly says to use the tool for 'longer-form content that should be persisted' and lists example document types. It also advises using 'relates_to' to link to entities. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, such as 'remember' for potentially shorter-form content.

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