save_summary

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the token requirement and the 'user-approved' qualifier, which adds context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict the annotations, and there's no mention of permissions or side effects, but the core safety profile is already covered.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The central action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately. Nothing is redundant, and the entire description can be read in seconds.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation) and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The token prerequisite is the key contextual detail, and it's included. One might want to know what happens if the token is invalid, but that's minor for a simple save operation.

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 all parameters have descriptions. However, those descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'same as preview' for title, sources, etc.), and the tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, but the descriptions are terse.

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 ('saves') and resource ('user-approved summary') plus destination ('output folder'), making the core purpose clear. It also mentions the required token from preview_save_summary, which indicates its role in the workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the preview tool, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 clear prerequisite: it requires the token from preview_save_summary, which implies this should be called after preview. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_save_summary or apply_organize. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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