save_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the shallow-merge behavior and the exact write location, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits details like directory creation, error handling, or what happens if the file exists, which are relevant for a persistence tool without annotation 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. It is concise, with no wasted words, and directly communicates the key information an agent needs.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not visible), the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It covers when to call it and what it does, but leaves out parameter semantics and edge-case behavior. The presence of an output schema might reduce the need to describe return values, but given the minimal parameter explanation, the overall context is only moderately complete.

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. It implies the parameters via the path template (<work_dir>/<study>/brief.json) but does not explicitly explain the 'brief' object structure or the optional nature of work_dir. The path gives partial meaning, but leaves the agent guessing about parameter content and defaults, which is insufficient for 0% schema coverage.

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 action (persist/shallow-merge) and the target resource (<work_dir>/<study>/brief.json). It distinguishes from siblings like load_brief by specifying the save operation and the file path, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call after each phase', providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would make it a 5. The sibling list includes load_brief, but no explicit comparison is made.

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