save_form_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It conveys the key behavioral effect that the answer is persisted and will not be asked again, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or failure conditions. The output schema may cover return structure, but additional behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 of thirteen words, front-loaded with the verb 'persist'. It is extremely concise and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, use context, and effect. It is sufficient to guide invocation, though it could mention behavior on duplicate field_label entries.

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 adds context that the 'answer' is a screener answer, but does not explicitly explain 'field_label'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, giving baseline clarity, but the description does not fully clarify the meaning or expected format of each parameter.

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 verb 'persist' and the resource 'screener answer', with the intent 'never asked twice'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_seen by indicating this tool saves an answer rather than just checking status.

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 phrase 'HUMAN-confirmed' implies the tool should be used only when a human has confirmed an answer, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools that might be more appropriate.

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