save_finding_auto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses auto confidence scoring rules, the read-before-write duplicate check behavior, the confirmation requirement, and that the tool creates persistent data. This goes well beyond what schema alone provides.

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 well-organized with labeled sections and front-loads purpose and when-to-use. It is a bit wordy and contains a typo ('Limitations or cave'), and some statements are slightly redundant, but every section earns its place.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, confidence behavior, duplicate-check behavior, confirmation requirements, and all parameters. It is slightly incomplete on the return value and on whether a duplicate suggestion aborts the save or merely warns, which is relevant for a write 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%, but the description contains a PARAMETERS section that explains every parameter: what is required, what is optional, how confidence is auto-scored, and the confirm safety gate. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "convenience wrapper for saving findings with automatic confidence scoring." It clearly distinguishes itself from the plain save_finding sibling by emphasizing the auto-scoring behavior, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: "Call this whenever you discover something important" and "Use when you think 'this is important' or 'this should be remembered'." It does not, however, state when to prefer the sibling save_finding or when not to use this tool, so exclusions are missing.

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