Save to my account

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the same programId updates it (idempotent behavior) and requires an account, which is beyond the annotations. It does not detail destructive consequences beyond updating, but it doesn't contradict the annotations and adds meaningful context.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key update behavior and the account requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it saves a program, updates if same programId, and requires an account. It doesn't mention error cases or return values, but those aren't required by the rubric when no output schema exists, and annotations cover safety hints.

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%, and both parameters are described in the input schema (token and program). The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond mentioning 'programId', which is not a parameter itself. Since the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Save') with a clear resource ('a program to the user's account') and explicitly labels the intent ('save this for later'). It also mentions the idempotent behavior (same programId updates), which differentiates it from load_program and list_my_programs among the 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?

The description gives a prerequisite ('Needs the user's Rhylthyme account') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any when-not conditions. It implies usage for saving, but lacks explicit routing guidance compared to siblings.

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