save_ai_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the downstream effect (the report becomes visible in the web app on two page types) and an authoring constraint, but says nothing about overwrite/upsert behavior, whether repeated saves duplicate, permissions, or limits on report size.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then a single authoring constraint. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 tool with no annotations, the description covers what happens and one quality rule, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It is still thin on mutation semantics (create vs update), on how 'kind' relates to 'symbol'/'instruments', and on how the report content should be sourced.

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 single top-level parameter 'report' is undocumented in both the description and the schema, though nested fields carry their own descriptions. The description adds one meaningful content rule ('every claim should be backed by numbers from the journal') but no structural guidance about which sections to populate for which 'kind'.

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 ('Save a coaching review') and adds the effect ('shows in the web app, AI Coach page and each instrument's page'), which is concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from save_trade_feedback, the nearest sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the visibility note (this is the way to surface a review in the app), and the 'backed by numbers' sentence hints at content expectations. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use versus save_trade_feedback, and no prerequisite guidance such as whether a review must be generated first.

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