save_approved_report

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

Goes far beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: discloses that it re-validates all gates independently of the preview, specifies failure codes (DRAFT_NOT_CLEAN, APPROVAL_TOKEN_MISMATCH), explains overwrite behavior, and reveals the append-only audit log that preserves prior hashes and never modifies/deletes existing records. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the most critical facts (only write tool, approval required), then proceeds through gate re-checking, overwrite/audit behavior, and closes with a valuable use/don't-use Examples section. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the destructive nature of the tool.

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?

Complete for a destructive write tool: it ties into the preview_save_report workflow, states approval requirements, error conditions, overwrite and audit semantics. An output schema (SaveResponse) exists so return values need no elaboration, and allowed roots are covered by the list_allowed_roots sibling. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, with all three parameters already well documented, including the constraint that draft must exactly match what was passed to preview_save_report. The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema, adding little new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the burden.

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 ('저장합니다') + resource ('output_root') and explicitly positions itself as the only write tool on the server, clearly distinguishing it from its read-only siblings including the paired preview_save_report. An agent immediately understands what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('only after the user has explicitly approved', approval is human-only) and when-not-to-use examples (preview BLOCKED, or continuing without approval). Clarifies that a READY preview is not permission to save — it only means the gate was passed — which directly prevents misuse.

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