save_output

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the write target (outputs/) and that the file becomes visible in Obsidian, but says nothing about collision/overwrite behavior when a title already exists, whether it returns a path, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the primary action plus destination are front-loaded before the secondary guidance about sources.

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 destination is covered. However, for a write tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description should still address overwrite semantics and what 'markdown' content is expected.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the purpose of 'sources' (timestamped URLs / video titles relied on), which is genuinely additive, but leaves 'title' and 'markdown' (format, whether frontmatter is expected) 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a finished plan, summary or answer') and pins the destination ('into the vault (outputs/)') plus the user-visible outcome in Obsidian. No sibling tool does this, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

'Always save plans with this tool' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the second sentence tells the agent what to include in sources. It lacks any when-not guidance or alternative path, but the positive usage rule is unambiguous.

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