reference

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description correctly implies a write operation by saying it preserves content. It adds one useful behavior: a URL alone records a citation without fetching it. However, it omits major mutation semantics exposed in the schema, including slot replacement, layer placement, expected_slot_revision concurrency checks, relation creation, and sharing visibility.

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 a single front-loaded sentence using a semicolon to attach one key caveat. There is no filler; every clause carries either purpose or behavior.

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 9-parameter write tool with a complex schema and no output explanation needed, the description is far too thin. It covers source content and the URL caveat but leaves slot/layer semantics, concurrency control, relations, and sharing behavior unexplained, which is a significant gap for an agent invoking this tool correctly.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'source' choice (text vs artifact) and the URL-only case, but it says nothing about required parameters like initiative and name or about options, related, sharing, request_id, and description. Most parameter semantics are left undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preserve') and names the resources it stores: supplied source text or a verified artifact. It also distinguishes a URL-only call from a fetch. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like note, pin, or context, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The only routing hint is that a URL alone records a citation without fetching it, which clarifies one edge case but not general tool selection.

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