Save a plot

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true already declared), the description explains the actual upsert semantics: saving the same plot again replaces its report, preserves the name and note, and pulls it out of the Trash. That is meaningful behavior an annotation alone cannot convey. It stops short of noting permission requirements or what is returned on success.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence packs prerequisite plus replacement behavior efficiently, though the pronoun-heavy "it takes it out of the Trash" phrasing costs a little clarity.

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 non-destructive, idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the duplicate-handling behavior, and the Trash interaction — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that the agent is not told what the call returns or how it differs from update_plot for an existing plot.

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 coverage is 100%, so each of the three parameters is already documented in-schema, and the description adds essentially nothing per-parameter. The only implicit link is that report_id is "the id analyse_plot returned", which the schema itself states. 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?

"Keep a finished report in My plots" states a create/persist action against a specific resource, and the requirement that the report must have run every plan check narrows it further. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like update_plot, file_plot, or restore_plot, and the interchangeable use of "plot", "report", and "point" muddies what exactly is being saved.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite workflow — call analyse_plot without naming checks first — which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It lacks any exclusion or comparison against update_plot/file_plot/restore_plot, so the agent still has to infer those boundaries.

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