save_minutes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the summary is reused as context for the next meeting and that new_terms accumulate in a glossary. However, it does not disclose whether the save is idempotent, whether it overwrites previous minutes, or other side effects like required authentication or rate limits.

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 two sentences in Korean, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the primary action and providing usage context. It is front-loaded with the main verb and avoids any filler.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., job_id source), or the relationship between parameters. The agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning to two parameters: summary (length hint) and new_terms (format hint). The other five parameters (title, job_id, project, minutes_md, meeting_date) remain undescribed, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 saves meeting minutes ('작성한 회의록 저장') and specifies that the summary is reused for next meeting context. It also gives guidance on handling new terms via the new_terms parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_glossary and add_participants.

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 explains when to use the tool (saving minutes) and provides explicit guidance on how to structure the summary (3-5 sentences) and handle new terms ('용어 :: 설명'). It implicitly tells the agent to use this tool for finalizing minutes and to populate new_terms, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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