write_insight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions persisting to a database and storing markdown as-is, but it does not clarify whether the operation is create vs update, required permissions, error behavior, or idempotency. Key behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise at 31 words split into two sentences. It front-loads the key action and then provides usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values (e.g., an ID or success indicator). It does not. It also does not mention optional parameters like data_snapshot or date_range, leaving gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly. For a write tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficiently complete.

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 71% (5 of 7 parameters described). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'Markdown content is stored as-is,' which slightly reinforces the 'content' parameter, but adds no new semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'persist' and the resource 'analysis insight', and it differentiates from sibling tools which are all read-oriented.

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 explicitly says 'Use after producing a substantive analysis you want to keep', providing clear context. It does not discuss when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools are not similar enough to cause confusion.

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