save_output_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about payload expectations (source URL required for citation) but doesn't disclose side effects such as whether existing output is overwritten, how status transitions are used, or any write permissions needed.

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 three sentences are dense and relevant: a one-line purpose, a workflow placement, and a payload data contract. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description orients the agent in the pipeline (gatherer → this tool → compiler) and states the one non-obvious payload requirement. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so missing return-value details are not a gap. It falls short of complete only because it doesn't specify the effect of repeated saves.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the payload's source-URL requirement with 'should carry its own source URL,' slightly strengthening the schema's weaker 'ideally carrying,' but it doesn't add meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a gathered report output.' It further defines the tool's role as the place where the gatherer writes findings, which clearly differentiates it from sibling read tools like get_output_tool and definition tools.

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?

States a clear usage context: the gatherer should write findings here after sweeping sources. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or negative cases, but the workflow cue is enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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