Record parsed document content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement, the precondition that the object must be in the bucket, and the irreversible nature of writing to history ('never re-parsed'). It does not discuss idempotency or error handling, but covers key behavioral traits adequately.

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 at about 120 words, with clear sentence structure. It front-loads the purpose and then provides necessary details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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 tool has 5 parameters (4 required, nested objects) and no output schema. The description explains the confirmation workflow, the bucket precondition, and the expected content structure. It does not describe return values or error states, but given the complexity and absence of output schema, it is mostly complete.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'unit' (scope value, e.g., chapter number), 'deliverable' (e.g., 'manual' or 'lessons'), and the 'content' object's subfields (characters with required fields, exampleDomains, etc.). However, it does not explain 'relPath' or 'confirm' in detail, leaving some gaps.

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's purpose: 'store the structured content you extracted into history so it is never re-parsed.' It specifies the verb 'store' and the resource 'structured content,' distinguishing it from read-only or logging tools. The inclusion of 'After reading an UNTRACKED document's text' provides context for when this tool should be used.

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: 'The object must already be in the bucket,' explains the 'unit' and 'deliverable' parameters with examples (maths), and details the confirmation workflow ('REQUIRES CONFIRMATION: called without confirm:true it only returns a needsConfirmation notice'). It also instructs on character inclusion: 'include every one found ANYWHERE in the document.' This is comprehensive and helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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