save_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomic superseding and duplicate detection, but omits auth needs, error behavior, or side effects beyond version control.

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?

Concise, no fluff, front-loaded with key action. Could be more structured for clarity on parameters, but efficient overall.

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?

Given 9 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Lacks explanation of return values beyond possible_duplicates, error conditions, and full param semantics.

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 0%, yet description only explains a few parameters (required ones, version, status_tag). Leaves 'tags', 'sources', 'version_locked' undefined, insufficient for a 9-param tool.

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 it stores research docs with atomic superseding. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_reference or check_reference, though the purpose is distinct.

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 clear guidance on required fields, optional version, and default status_tag. Mentions possible_duplicates response hinting at reuse. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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