save_research

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context: it only validates citation completeness, semantic support must be checked by host/user, and artifacts do not enter the original text index. These are non-obvious traits that annotations do not carry.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource before the constraints. No filler, though the citation-rule sentence packs several conditions without separation.

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?

No output schema exists, so return behavior is unclear (does it return an id or validation report?). The description covers validation scope and index behavior adequately for a write tool, but omits enough parameter meaning that an agent could mis-populate claims or notes.

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% across 4 params, so the description must carry the load. It does add meaningful citation semantics (same project, current parse, exact excerpt; author claims must cite source) but says nothing about project_id, title, notes, or the Claim kind/review/support enums, leaving half the model undocumented.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (保存/save) and the resource (阅读卡片/回答/综述 – host-generated reading cards, answers, summaries). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_method_review or export_research, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 usage (persisting host-generated artifacts) and lays out citation rules, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance such as 'use save_method_review for method notes'. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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