save_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the file write location and optional logging, but omits behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing files, required permissions, side effects of logging, or return value details.

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 concise: two sentences followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence contributes essential information (purpose, path, parameter explanations). 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (but not described), the description covers the core aspects: purpose, file path, and parameter meanings. It lacks details on what happens on conflict, how logging integrates with the logging system, and the return format. Still, it is largely complete for a straightforward save operation.

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's Args section is essential. It adds clear, meaningful definitions for all four parameters: agent_slug (the agent), task_slug (short slug), content (markdown), and log_run (optional default True). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Save a review document to the PKM and optionally log the agent run.' It provides the specific file path pattern and distinguishes from sibling tools like log_agent_run (which only logs) and save_brainstorm_output (different output).

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 use for saving review documents but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not compare to alternatives like log_agent_run for the logging aspect, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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