he_create_saved_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a saved search, which implies a mutation (side effect). The note to ask user confirmation is a key behavioral trait, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether duplicates are allowed, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure. With no annotations, this is a modest disclosure.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus a one-sentence instruction. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral requirement. However, it omits context like the format of search data (beyond referencing 'search filters'), error handling, success response (e.g., returns an ID?), and idempotency. While the tool is straightforward, a bit more detail would make it complete enough for an agent to use reliably.

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 has 100% description coverage: the required parameter 'searchData' is described as 'Search data to save (same format as search filters).' The description adds no further meaning beyond this schema description. Per the guidelines, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as no additional semantic context is provided.

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 'Create a saved search from search filters.' The verb 'create' and resource 'saved search' are specific, and the phrase 'from search filters' indicates the input. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like he_get_saved_searches (list), he_get_saved_search (get one), and he_delete_saved_search (delete).

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 includes the important instruction 'ask user confirmation,' which guides when to invoke. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update an existing saved search vs create new), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion cases. The guidance is minimal but present.

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