Save generated report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the upsert behavior: re-saving the same date, type, title, and source updates the existing report. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence guarantees beyond 'outside model context', or what happens on failure.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key behavioral detail. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has nested payload parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotation context. The description clarifies persistence and update semantics but omits critical invocation details such as required field formats, defaults, valid report types, or how to structure the payload.

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%, and the description does not explain the payload structure or field semantics. It only references 'date, type, title, and source' in the context of re-saving, which provides minimal insight into required parameters like content, summary, symbols, or trade_date.

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: 'Persist a completed report outside model context.' This clearly identifies the operation and resource, and the title aligns. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like manual_data_submit, but the focus on 'completed report' and persistence is fairly unique.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a report is completed and needs to be persisted outside model context. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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