save_story

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — saving bypasses the interview flow, so no guided validation or normalization occurs — which is useful context. However, it says nothing about whether saving overwrites an existing story with the same title, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what is returned on success.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and its scope front-loaded and the alternative deferred to the second sentence. Nothing is redundant with the tool name or title.

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?

For a simple three-required-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the main alternative, which is the minimum an agent needs to select it. It stops short on the write semantics (duplicate/overwrite behavior, return value such as a new story id) that matter for a save operation with no annotations to lean on.

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%, so the description must supply parameter meaning, and it only repeats the three names already visible in the schema. It adds no guidance on tag format (free strings? canonical taxonomy?), title uniqueness, content length, or whether content should be markdown/plain text — all of which an agent would need to fill these required fields correctly.

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 career story') and enumerates the inputs it accepts (title, tags, content), while explicitly naming the sibling it is not ('without running the interview flow'). An agent can distinguish it from start_story_interview and from save_resume/save_jd without opening any 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 gives an explicit routing rule: use start_story_interview when guided capture is wanted, otherwise use this. It does not say when direct saving is the right choice (e.g., content already drafted, bulk import, or existing transcript), so the positive case is left to inference.

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