Save Context Card

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the concrete consequence ('Replaces any earlier context-card.html') and the browser-open side effect, which the boolean hints cannot convey. It does not mention failure modes or permission requirements, so it stops short of full coverage.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, with no filler. The return-value sentence and the alternative-routing sentence are both load-bearing; slightly dense but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself ('the card as Markdown ... plus a clickable link'), lists the returned content sections, and discloses the overwrite and browser-open side effects. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five optional parameters (open, theme, accent, detail, expanded), including defaults and enum values. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Write the context card to context-card.html in the project.' It also names the output (Markdown plus a link) and contrasts itself with the sibling render_context_card, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

'Use this instead of pasting render_context_card's HTML into a chat that can't display it' names the alternative tool and the condition that selects this one. The local-vs-remote behavior of the browser-open step is also stated, so the routing decision and the execution context are both explicit.

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