save_context_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behavioral traits: saving verbatim, never rewriting words, and telling the user after saving that the note can be reviewed/removed in Brand. While it doesn't discuss permissions or side effects, the essential behavior is clearly communicated.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core action, the exclusions with alternatives, and the post-save behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses examples to make the verbatim requirement unambiguous.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage exclusions, named alternatives, storage behavior, and post-save user communication, leaving no significant gap in understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by emphasizing 'VERBATIM' and 'Never rewrite their words,' which clarifies the intended use of the text parameter. The source parameter is adequately described in the schema's enum descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a one-off correction or preference the marketer tells you to their context ledger, VERBATIM.' It further distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding dated plans (save_plan) and durable truths (save_brand_truth), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use criteria and exclusions: NOT for questions/small talk, NOT for dated plans (use save_plan), NOT for durable truths (use save_brand_truth). This provides clear guidance on when to select this tool over its siblings.

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