save_assessment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, overwrite behavior, auth requirements, or return value. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

Given 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too short to cover important context like what is returned, prerequisites (e.g., email/phone requirement), or how saving relates to other tools like get_assessment_history. It leaves the agent without critical operational guidance.

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. The description adds only a high-level grouping ('homeowner details' and 'calculated results') which provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Save') and a specific resource ('a solar assessment'), clearly stating the action and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculation/retrieval tools by focusing on persistence.

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 phrase 'for future reference' implies this tool is for persisting results after calculations, and the sibling set contains no other save tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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