mindbase_research_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses creation vs append semantics and the automatic log entry. It stops short of describing return behavior or side effects on existing content besides appending, but the critical mutation behavior is clear.

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 very compact and front-loaded: it states the action and destination first, then the append/create behavior, then the logging side effect. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it specifies destination, overwrite semantics, and log behavior. It does not describe expected return/confirmation behavior, but the schema covers parameters well and no nested or complex output is involved.

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 all four parameters at 100% coverage, including topic slugification and the projectId default. The description adds the file destination but does not materially extend the parameter meanings beyond what the schema 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 states a clear verb (Save), a specific resource (research findings), and a precise destination path (sources/research/<slug>.md). It also clarifies the append-vs-create behavior, which distinguishes it from general write tools among the siblings.

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 intended use case is implied: use when saving research findings as markdown to the research directory. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like append_to_page, save_chat_excerpt, or mindbase_append_log, so an agent may need to infer when this tool is the preferred choice.

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