reasoning_save

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms this is a persistence operation but says nothing about idempotency implications (repeat saves create new entries), TTL/retention behavior, or confidence/evidence handling, leaving real behavioral gaps for a save tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core verb and payload are stated immediately. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain TTL, confidence defaults, evidence linking, or project scoping, nor the relationship to the search/list siblings. Annotations carry the safety side, but the payload semantics remain underexplained.

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 only 43%, and the description only names the three required fields (goal, steps, conclusion) already marked required in the schema. The optional project, ttl_days, confidence, and evidence_obs_ids carry little or no documentation, and the description does not compensate for those 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?

States a specific verb (persist) and resource (reasoning trace) and enumerates the core fields goal, steps, conclusion. The sibling family (reasoning_search, reasoning_list) makes the write-vs-read split inferable, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

"for later reuse" hints at the purpose but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools reasoning_search or reasoning_list that a reuse workflow would combine with. The agent must infer when to persist versus retrieve.

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