save_hunt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'locally', which hints at storage scope, but it doesn't disclose persistence behavior, whether saving overwrites existing hunts with the same name, or return/error behavior. An output schema exists, so return format is partly covered, but mutation semantics remain opaque.

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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and object. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with 3 params, no annotations, and a 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but missing critical context: what a hunt is versus a search, overwrite behavior, and parameter meanings. The output schema covers return values, but the input and behavioral aspects are underspecified.

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 adds no parameter information. All three parameters (name, searches, per_search_limit) are undocumented beyond their titles. The description does not compensate for this gap, though the parameter names are partially self-explanatory.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Save a reusable named hunt locally.' The agent can distinguish this from sibling save_search (saves a search, not a hunt) at a high level. However, it does not clarify what a 'hunt' is or how it differs from a 'saved search' beyond the noun.

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 word 'reusable' implies the purpose (create a saved collection for future use), but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With siblings like save_search and run_hunt, the agent must infer the relationship without help.

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