save_hyde

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency per (doc_id, query), in-place updates, the non-citable nature, and searchability via note_type.

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 clear lead sentence and a bullet-like list for arguments. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; could be slightly more terse.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains inputs, idempotency, use case, and integration with other tools (searchable via note_type). It is complete.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It thoroughly describes each parameter: query (user query and bridge id), hypothesis (answer paragraph), doc_id (optional scope), title (optional label derived from query).

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 uses a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('HyDE hypothetical document'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it's for hypothetical documents and creates a 'type=hyde bridge' for search.

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 explicitly states when to use: after a 'search(query, hypothesis=...) fallback produced good grounding', and what not to use for: 'never a citable source'. It also mentions idempotency and searchability via note_type.

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