prom_saved_search_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the search is saved 'locally' and for 'repeat execution,' which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens if a name already exists, whether the definition is validated, what permissions are needed, or what the return looks like. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words.

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 complexity (nested object, 2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It should explain the expected structure of the 'search' parameter, any constraints, and the tool's behavior upon saving (e.g., overwrite, validation, locality). The description fails to provide this critical context.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'name' or 'search' parameters. The nested 'search' object has multiple fields (query, sort, limit, etc.) that are not explained in the description. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from property names and types alone.

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 structured Prom.ua search definition locally.' This clearly identifies the action and the entity being saved, distinguishing it from siblings like prom_saved_search_run or prom_search_products. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from prom_saved_search_list/delete at a glance, though the verb 'save' inherently contrasts with list/delete.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prom_search_products or prom_saved_search_run. It implies saving for repeat execution, which hints at use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative selection criteria.

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