Save conversation turn

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the fail-loud failure mode, the recommendation to use a stable session_id, and a prohibition on storing secrets/credentials. It does not clarify duplicate handling despite idempotentHint=false, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action, then usage and safety guidance. It is dense and each sentence carries weight, though the tethering/receipt-path sentence is somewhat verbose with domain-specific jargon.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call, fallback behavior, and data-safety constraints. A minor gap remains on what the save returns or how duplicates are handled, but annotations and schema cover the rest adequately.

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%, so parameters are documented, but the description still adds meaning: it specifies that session_id must be stable for a thread and that content must have secrets removed, complementing 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?

States a specific verb (Saves) and resource (one human, assistant, system, or tool turn into UnClick conversation history), plus the downstream purpose (Orchestrator continuity). An agent can immediately distinguish this from other tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it (after each accepted subscription chat human turn and after each assistant reply when the client can call tools) and prescribes a fallback path (fail loud with UNTETHERED or use the documented API fallback) if unavailable.

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