save_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that saving creates a separate Defuddle note, never overwrites an existing different note, and optionally opens in Obsidian. These are meaningful side effects and safety guarantees that go well beyond the bare tool name.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main action and destination are front-loaded, followed by key behavioral notes and a clear usage restriction. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation context: what it does, where it saves, key safety behavior, optional open, and when to call. It does not describe return values, failure modes, or prerequisites like vault configuration, but those are secondary given the concise, clear core.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies clip_id is the identifier of the previously extracted clip, and it explains the behavior of the optional 'open' parameter via 'Optionally opens it in Obsidian.' However, clip_id itself is never explicitly named or described beyond implication, and no concrete source for the ID is given.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Save a previously extracted clip to the configured Obsidian vault and clipping folder.' It clearly identifies the action, target system, and distinguishes itself from the sibling extract_url by focusing on the save step rather than extraction.

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 explicitly states 'Call only when the user requests saving,' which gives a clear when-to-use condition. It does not explicitly contrast with extract_url or provide 'when not to use' alternatives, but the phrase 'previously extracted clip' implicitly separates it from the extraction workflow.

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