save_approved_minutes

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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by explaining that the token only guarantees technical integrity, not user approval; that the tool is destructive (overwrite possible) and idempotent; and that errors include recovery guidance in the exception messages. All behavioral traits are disclosed without contradiction.

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 headings for Args, Returns, and Raises, uses bullet points for preconditions, and front-loads the core requirement. While moderately long, every sentence contributes necessary information (preconditions, token semantics, error handling) and there is no fluff or 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?

Covers the complete lifecycle: prerequisites, parameter semantics, return value (SaveResponse), error conditions and their recovery, and how it fits among siblings (only write tool). The presence of an output schema further reduces the burden. Nothing an agent needs 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage and detailed descriptions for all four parameters, including token mismatch and expected_write_mode enforcement. The description's Args section largely repeats this but adds important context about the token's limited guarantee and the preconditions, adding marginal value beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is lifted to 4 because the description clarifies the interaction between parameters (e.g., the relationship between approval_token and minutes_markdown).

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 verb (saving minutes to a file) and the resource (meeting minutes), with a precise condition (approval token match). It explicitly identifies itself as '이 서버에서 유일한 쓰기 도구' (the only write tool on this server), distinguishing it from all sibling tools, which are read/preview tools.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: preview_save_minutes must return AWAITING_APPROVAL and issue a token, and the user must explicitly approve saving. It also gives an exclusion: '사용자가 "저장해"라고 말하지 않았다면 호출하지 마세요' (don't call unless the user says 'save'). This is clear, unambiguous guidance on when to invoke the tool.

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