save_document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by stating the access level required per operation (write for creation/placement, edit for content) and that content or placement changes queue normal indexing. It does not, however, warn that update can clear content or placement, which is the main reason the tool is flagged destructive.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; the semicolon-clause on permissions is slightly compressed but every clause carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers modes, alternatives, permissions, and indexing side effects. The one gap is not surfacing that update with empty content/null placement clears existing data, a material behavior for a destructive-annotated tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the action discriminator as the branch selector and by contrasting the placement-change case with batch_documents, which helps an agent pick parameters correctly rather than just reading field docs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create or update one document") and immediately differentiates the two modes and the sibling that handles the multi-document case, batch_documents. An agent can distinguish it from save_folder/save_category/save_tag without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states action=create for new documents and action=update for existing ones, names batch_documents as the alternative for the same placement change across multiple existing documents, and lists the permission prerequisites per operation type. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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