Save Markups

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it returns HTTP 201 on success, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any authorization or rate limit details. The added value is moderate.

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 relatively concise, containing several useful pieces of information (purpose, required params, endpoint). However, it has a grammatical error ('Creates a new Document Markup records') and repeats 'Document Markup'. Overall, it is well-structured without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description includes the endpoint and success response, but does not explain the update mechanism (e.g., how to distinguish new vs. existing markups) or the expected format of the markups parameter. Given the tool's complexity (create/update with an open-ended array), more detail would be beneficial. The presence of annotations provides some safety context but the description itself is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the required parameters without adding any new meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. No examples or format hints for the markups array are given.

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 'saves or updates' and the resource 'markups' in the context of a company, project, and document. It distinguishes the tool as the primary save/update action but does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related sibling tools like add_a_new_markup or modify_markups, so a slight deduction is warranted.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_a_new_markup for only creating, modify_markups for only updating). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that would make this tool more appropriate than others, which is a significant gap given the many markup-related siblings.

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