save_artifact

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: true). The description adds context about artifacts being high-value and becoming searchable objects, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 clear sections (short statement, WHEN TO USE, WHY, FLOW, IMPORTANT). It is front-loaded with key information and every part serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 parameter count, required fields, no output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage flow, parameter details, and importance. An agent can effectively use the tool based on this description.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics for conversationId (must match save_conversation), content (full verbatim, not summary), and provides examples for title and type. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 a single artifact linked to a conversation memory, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like save_conversation and save_investigation_result by focusing on artifacts.

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 provides explicit WHEN TO USE guidelines, stating it should be called after save_conversation, once per artifact, with full content. It includes a FLOW example and explicit instructions not to summarize or truncate.

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