save_diagnostic_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does reveal two important behaviors: persisting the diagnostic summary and marking the diagnostic phase complete. However, it does not disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, whether it requires a prior generated result, or what happens on failure, so transparency is only partial.

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 sentence with no filler and names both the core action and the side effect. It is concise, though brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and usage detail.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain the expected return value, error conditions, whether the operation is idempotent, or how it relates to submit_diagnostic and complete_session. The context provided is enough only for a very basic understanding.

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 must compensate but barely does. The phrase 'diagnostic summary' loosely maps to the 'result' parameter, but session_id and the nullable request_id are never explained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 ('Persist') and resource ('the diagnostic summary'), and adds a distinct outcome ('mark the diagnostic phase complete'). This makes it clear the tool is a write/state-transition operation and separates it from retrieval tools like get_diagnostic_result, though it does not explicitly contrast with submit_diagnostic.

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 this is used at the end of a diagnostic workflow but does not state when it should be used relative to siblings like submit_diagnostic, generate_diagnostic, or get_diagnostic_result. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the phase-complete wording.

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