save_assessment_workspace

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate a non-read-only operation), the description discloses key behavioral traits: 'This persists working data only' and 'Selecting an offer records no acceptance.' It clarifies side effects and non-effects, adding context not in the schema. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded. The core action is stated in the first sentence, followed by usage rules and a fallback note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 write tool with an output schema and four parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral context: purpose, creation/update semantics, persistence scope, and a recovery path. The main gap is full parameter definitions, but the description compensates for the most critical one (revision) and directs to a recovery tool. Overall, it is nearly complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains expected_revision via 'Use revision 0 to create; updates require the last read revision,' and touches on selected_offer_ref with 'Selecting an offer records no acceptance.' However, it does not explain what 'dossier' or 'run_ref' represent, leaving ambiguity. The recovery reference to 'these same inputs' implies the parameter set but doesn't define them.

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 clearly states the action: 'Save a sealed assessment draft in the selected company's Project.' It specifies the resource (sealed assessment draft) and distinguishes itself from related tools like recover_assessment_workspace and read_assessment_workspace by focusing on the write operation and persistence semantics.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: 'Use revision 0 to create; updates require the last read revision.' It also warns about uncertainty and directs to the recovery tool: 'If a save is uncertain, use recover_assessment_workspace with these same inputs before deciding on any further write.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative.

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