Save a page to nectr

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: automatic re-crawling to stay current, monthly quota consumption, and the exception when already saved. Complements openWorldHint and idempotentHint. Could have noted auth or what happens on quota exhaustion.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return value and quota caveat. 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?

Covers purpose, side effects (re-crawl, quota), and return values, which is strong for a no-output-schema tool. Missing explicit auth/permission requirements and error behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the 'already saved' condition (relevant to force_refresh) without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource chain: converts a web page/PDF/DOCX to markdown and saves it to the nectr library. Distinguishes itself from siblings (search_library, get_page, list_projects) by being the only write/conversion tool.

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?

Implies usage (when you want to save a page), but never explicitly routes to alternatives or states when NOT to use it. Siblings like get_page (read an existing page) aren't contrasted. The quota caveat hints at a cost consideration but not a decision rule.

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