save_approved_report

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower — yet the description still adds critical context: the token guarantees only technical integrity (approved content == saved content), NOT user approval, which is a crucial safety clarification. It also discloses the OVERWRITE destructive mode and the WRITE_MODE_CHANGED rejection mechanism, deepening understanding of the idempotent+destructive combination.

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?

Well-structured with clear section headers (Args, Returns, Raises), a front-loaded purpose statement, and numbered preconditions that make the safety gate easy to parse. Slightly verbose — the Args block largely duplicates schema descriptions and the Raises list could be trimmed — but every section earns its place in an approval-gated tool where safety detail matters.

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 tool with a conditional approval workflow, the description is complete: it covers the preconditions, the token semantics and its limitation, the error types with recovery info, the output shape (SaveResponse with path/audit/write_mode), and the optional expected_write_mode safeguard. Output schema exists and parameter coverage is 100%, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself already documents all four parameters well, including the critical constraint on report_markdown ('even one character different fails token verification') and expected_write_mode's overwrite-protection purpose. The description's Args section restates these rather than adding materially new meaning, though it does reinforce the cross-parameter binding (token must originate from preview, markdown must match preview) in the flow context.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+condition: 'saves the report to file only when the approval token issued in preview matches.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools — it explicitly declares itself 'the only write tool on this server,' which is a concrete distinguishing claim against the read/validation siblings like preview_save_report and list_saved_reports.

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 two explicit numbered preconditions that must hold before invocation: (1) preview_save_report returned AWAITING_APPROVAL and issued a token, and (2) the user has explicitly approved saving. It goes further with a clear exclusion: 'Do not call unless the user said save.' This gives the agent unambiguous go/no-go criteria.

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