save_brand_truth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains what constitutes a valid brand truth and instructs the agent to capture words verbatim and confirm the note to the user. It could more explicitly state whether the tool overwrites or appends, but for a simple save operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 longer than minimal but every section earns its place: definition, kind breakdown, usage separation, and verbatim instruction. It is front-loaded and well organized, though the examples could arguably be condensed without losing much.

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 save tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what to call it for, what qualifies, how to invoke it (verbatim), and the expected follow-up interaction with the user. It was self-contained and clear.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, providing 100% coverage. The description adds value by elaborating the meaning of each kind with realistic examples and reinforcing the verbatim requirement for 'statement', going beyond the schema's minimal wording.

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 ('Capture') and resource ('structural business truth'), then defines four clear kinds with concrete examples. Differentiates itself from the sibling save_context_note by explicitly saying one-off plans go there.

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?

Tells the agent exactly when to use it: ONLY for durable business truths that shape the slate. Explicitly contrasts with 'NOT one-off plans' and redirects those to save_context_note, giving an alternative.

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