save_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly discloses the file-writing side effect, the sidecar location, and the requirement to pass real generated text. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return value, but the core behavioral traits are explicit.

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?

Every sentence carries weight: the action, the when-to-use rule, and the don'ts are all stated without repetition or filler. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple side-effect tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what to pass, and what not to do. It could add a note on overwriting an existing .md, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by requiring the summary parameter to be the text actually produced and clarifying that source_path refers to the converted document. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 action (save a summary), a precise resource (as a .md file beside the document), and clear conditions. It is obviously distinct from sibling conversion tools, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says to call it proactively whenever summarising, outlining, or answering a broad question about a converted document, and lists exclusions (narrow factual lookups) and a prohibition on inventing summaries. This is unambiguous routing guidance.

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