save_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema: only authors, author_ids, DOI/PMID/PMCID, journal, publication_year and canonical_url are written from metadata. But it omits key write behaviors such as overwrite/duplicate handling when a note already exists, network/auth requirements for fetching URLs or PDFs, and rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then an Args block that is dense but earns its place; the folder/format guidance is useful rather than filler. Slightly verbose in places but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter documentation is thorough with examples and folder/naming conventions. The remaining gap is the absence of write-collision or duplicate-handling semantics for a tool that saves into a vault.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all six parameters are documented with defaults, accepted values, and a concrete format example ('2024_Bakr_ARID1A'). It even constrains the nested metadata object's writable fields, which the schema leaves fully open.

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 chain (convert a web article or PDF into a markdown note) plus the terminal action (save it to the vault). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like new_note (blank note creation) and search_articles (retrieval).

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?

Provides concrete context cues, e.g. use '20-areas/research' for academic papers with DOI/journal and the 'YYYY_Author_ShortTitle' naming convention for research. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this (e.g. vs new_note/append_to_note).

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