Add style anchor

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that URL references go through a page extractor and may retain null raw_text on failure, that the tool returns the anchor, and that more than ten anchors is refused. These are concrete behavioral traits that an agent could not infer from the structured fields alone.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance, URL caveat, return/limit behavior, and an ethical constraint. Every sentence carries a distinct purpose with no 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 the 100% schema coverage, the available annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, failure behavior, quota limit, and return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the three parameters. The description mentions pasted text and URL as source types, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a named writing-style reference from pasted text or a URL.' It explicitly names related siblings (write_tweet, write_blog, list_style_anchors), allowing an agent to distinguish this tool from alternatives without inspecting the schema.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool ('Use to guide later write_tweet/write_blog drafts') and points to a sibling for selecting existing references ('use list_style_anchors'). It also adds a constraint ('more than ten anchors is refused') and a legal/ethical boundary, but stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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