seo_audit_save

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true but give no detail, and the description fills that gap meaningfully: it specifies that the write is confined to local history ('No modifica la web'), notes the returned id, and warns that the report may contain private provider data. Non-idempotency and rate/scope limits of the audit run itself are not addressed.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by two genuinely load-bearing caveats (no site mutation, private data). No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

With 9 parameters, openWorld network calls, and no output schema, the description supplies the one structural fact the schema cannot — the returned id for later retrieval/comparison. It is only slightly short of complete in not signaling the cost/scope of a run (maxPages up to 500, optional PageSpeed calls).

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 coverage is 78%, so most parameters (render, performance, gscSiteUrl, bingSiteUrl, dates) are already self-documenting in the schema and the description adds no parameter-level detail. The two undocumented fields (maxPages, performanceStrategy) are partly covered by defaults and enums, so the description's silence is a minor but real gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific compound action (run an audit AND persist the report to the user's local history) plus the returned id, which clearly separates it from non-persisting audit siblings like seo_audit_site or seo_audit_advanced. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 word 'explícitamente' implies the persistence is opt-in versus other audit tools, and 'para consultar o comparar después' hints at seo_audit_report/seo_audit_compare as follow-ups. However, it never says when to prefer this over seo_audit_site or seo_audit_advanced, leaving the agent to infer the routing rule.

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