Save Stamp

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

The description states that the tool creates a new record and returns HTTP 201, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations but not richly.

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 at 4 sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It includes endpoint details but could be tighter; the phrase 'enhanced features' is vague. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

With 10 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description does not fully explain the structure or behavior of the body parameters or the return object. It mentions the return on success but lacks details on error handling or field formats.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema itself provides semantic meaning. The description merely lists required parameters without adding extra context or guidance on usage beyond what is already in the schema.

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 'Saves new stamp' and specifies the scope (company, project, document). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_stamp and delete_stamp by emphasizing the creation aspect and listing required parameters.

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 provides a basic usage directive ('Use this to perform the save stamp action on Document Markup records') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons with alternative tools like add_a_new_markup. No exclusions or context on when this is preferred.

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