chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses idempotency (identical chain reused, not duplicated) and the unconnected-endpoints outcome, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It omits permission/rate-limit context, but for a save operation the key behaviors are covered.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the secondary notes about summary and idempotency. No filler, though slightly dense.

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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors (idempotency, unconnected reporting, summary purpose). The gap is the undescribed `initiative` parameter and no mention of what the returned chain looks like.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties link weight to path length (explaining from/to semantics) and explains that summary labels the chain for later triage. It does not address the undocumented `initiative` parameter.

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 verb (save) and resource (shortest weighted path as a knowledge chain / reasoning trail), which is clear and distinct from path-computation siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g., path, rechain, between), so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it explains that summary labels the chain for triage and that unconnected nodes are reported, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance against siblings like path, rechain, or between.

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