Save search expansion

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) with closed-world scope, so the description adds little on the safety side. It does not disclose whether saving overwrites existing expansion data, whether it is idempotent, whether it fails when no profile entry exists, or what is returned — all material for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity reflects genuine under-specification rather than tight editing, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 mutating tool taking an opaque nested object with no output schema, the description should cover prerequisites, overwrite semantics, and expected payload structure. None of that is present, leaving an agent able to guess the intent but not to construct a correct call.

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 single parameter "expansion" is an untyped nested object with zero schema description coverage, so the schema provides essentially no help. The description partially compensates by naming the contents (search terms and project names, per profile entry), which is the only structural hint available, but key names, shapes, and required sub-fields remain unspecified.

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 verb is clear ("Save") and the description names the payload contents ("search terms and project names written for each profile entry"), but the core noun "expansion" is never defined, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from the sibling save_profile. It conveys a general intent without pinning down the resource precisely.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus save_profile, save_recommendations, or show_profile, and no prerequisites such as whether a profile entry must already exist. The agent must infer the workflow position entirely from the name.

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