save_approved_minutes

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

The description discloses that this is a write/destructive operation (consistent with destructiveHint), requires explicit user consent beyond the token, and explains that the token only ensures technical integrity, not user approval. It also details failure modes with recovery information, adding safety-critical context beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a bolded uniqueness statement, numbered prerequisites, and separate sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. It front-loads the critical condition (token match) and is not unnecessarily verbose given the complexity, though it could trim some repetition of parameter details.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, prerequisites, user consent, parameter meanings, return values, and error recovery. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail the response shape further, making it fully complete for a write tool.

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 schema already covers all parameters with clear descriptions, including the exact-match requirement for minutes_markdown and the safety purpose of expected_write_mode. The description repeats these details rather than adding new meaning, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema, which has full coverage.

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 the tool's action: saving meeting minutes to a file only when the approval token matches. It also explicitly identifies itself as the only write tool on the server, distinguishing it from preview_save_minutes and other read-oriented siblings.

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?

It specifies exact prerequisites: preview_save_minutes must have returned AWAITING_APPROVAL and issued a token, and the user must have explicitly approved. It warns not to call unless the user has said to save, and names the only write tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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