save_correction

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that saved patterns are 'surfaced automatically', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether saving overwrites an existing pattern, if there are limits, or how the surfacing mechanism works). The description is adequate for a simple creation tool but lacks depth.

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 sentences clearly front-load the purpose and benefit. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator or ID). It also omits details on how the automatic surfacing works, leaving some context incomplete for a tool that integrates into a larger workflow.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the tool description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Save' and the resource 'correction pattern', explaining the purpose: capturing what went wrong and the right approach, and that they are surfaced automatically to avoid repeated mistakes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'save_memory' or 'save_rule'.

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 description implies usage when a mistake is recognized and a correction pattern should be saved for future reference, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other save tools (e.g., save_memory, save_rule). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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