pulse_routine_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the saved routine becomes a reviewable candidate and is not executed, but omits important behavior such as permissions, overwrite or duplicate handling, validation, and what happens to the provided evidence and final state.

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 a single efficiently structured sentence with the action and the key non-execution constraint front-loaded. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool with six required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives the high-level purpose and the important non-execution behavior but lacks the parameter, validation, and persistence details an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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?

The schema has six required parameters and 0% description coverage. The description mentions verification and candidacy at a high level but does not explain any parameter, including id, app_id, steps, final_state, or evidence, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: saving a routine. It also clarifies the resulting artifact is a reviewable candidate and that execution is not performed, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling routine tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'successfully verified routine' implies a precondition for calling the tool, and 'this does not execute it' clarifies one boundary. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when to use this instead of related routine or map tools, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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