save_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses upsert behavior and briefing integration but omits details on permissions, rate limits, or failure handling. The transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded with purpose, followed by guidelines, making it easy to parse.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain 'project_id' or 'agent_id', and lacks information on failure behavior. However, the output schema exists, so return values are covered. The core functionality is well-explained.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It adds meaning to 'key' (stable, updates), 'content' (implied), and 'tags' (task-<id> pattern) but does not cover 'project_id' or 'agent_id'. Overall, it partly compensates for the missing 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?

The description clearly states the tool writes a fact to a shared blackboard, specifying the verb 'write' and the resource 'shared blackboard'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_context (for reading) by focusing on writing/updating facts with stable keys.

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 explicit guidelines: use stable descriptive keys, update by reusing keys, and tag with 'task-<id>' for briefing visibility. It lacks direct comparison to other write-oriented siblings but offers clear context for when to use the tool.

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