save_reportPersist an approved MLX model recommendation report after user review, so ranked findings for a use case are stored for later reference.
Persist a recommendation report. Call only after the user reviewed it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | Yes | The recommendation report shown to the user | |
| approved | Yes | True only after explicit user approval |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the important gating rule that persistence is user-approved only, but says nothing about overwrite semantics, idempotency when a report is saved twice, or what authorization the caller needs — meaningful gaps for a write tool.
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 short sentences with zero waste; the precondition is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the two-parameter nested-object shape is covered by the schema. The missing piece is failure/duplicate-save behavior, which the description leaves unaddressed.
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 100%, with both report and approved documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Persist a recommendation report" gives a specific verb (persist/save) and resource (report), and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_recommendation or continue_recommendation. It stops short of naming any sibling to route the agent away from.
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?
"Call only after the user reviewed it" is an explicit timing precondition, reinforced by the approved flag. There is no exclusion or comparison against alternatives (e.g., is this ever called by the agent autonomously?), so it is clear but not complete routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.