save_entry

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet a single sentence says nothing about whether this creates or overwrites an entry with a matching title, what permissions are needed, whether it is reversible, or what identifier is returned. Only the word 'Save' signals mutation. It does not contradict structured data, but it leaves almost every behavioral trait undisclosed.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema and no description of required fields (the schema even marks required: [] while title says '(required)'), the description should explain lifecycle and return behavior. It does not, leaving the agent under-informed for a write tool.

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 88%, so the schema already documents body, type, title, status, project, purpose and summary. The description's 'prompt, skill, decision, etc.' merely previews the type enum already listed in the schema, adding no syntax, defaults, or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Save a vault entry') and grounds the abstract 'entry' with concrete examples (prompt, skill, decision), so the agent knows what kind of object is created. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as save_entry_ref, save_artifact, save_handoff or vault_mem_save, so the agent cannot tell which save path applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling save/compose tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only guidance is implied by the parenthetical type examples, which is not enough to route reliably across ~35 siblings.

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