save_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explicitly warning that the tool only previews a PLAN by default and that the mutation only happens when dry_run=false. This reveals the non-obvious dry-run-then-commit behavior and gives a concrete sense of the side-effect boundary.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important behavioral caveat. The endpoint and commit flag are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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 three-parameter tool, the description plus fully-documented schema is nearly complete. It explains the preview/commit flow and what the PLAN contains. The main gap is the lack of detail about what the commit response looks like, since there is no output schema, but the response_format parameter partially mitigates this.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The high-level description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing PLAN output with episode names; it does not explain ID formats, limits, or response_format beyond what the schema already states.

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 action and resource: 'Save episodes to your library (PUT /me/episodes)'. This clearly differentiates it from generic sibling tools like save_to_library and check/remove episode tools by naming the exact endpoint and target entity.

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?

The description clearly conveys the primary usage context: saving episodes to the user's library. It also gives crucial operational guidance: defaults to a preview-only PLAN, and requires dry_run=false to actually commit. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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