context_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's for saving a new context entry, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles duplicates, what happens on success/failure, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward action, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 of a write operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permissions), usage context (e.g., project requirements), and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., type with enum values, title, content, tags, session_context_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Save') and resource ('a new context entry for the current project'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like context_delete, context_get, context_list, and context_search by specifying it's for saving new entries rather than other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from todo_save or other 'save' tools, which slightly limits specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use context_save over context_list for viewing entries, context_search for finding existing ones, or todo_save for saving todos. There's also no information about prerequisites, such as needing an active project, which could be implied but isn't stated.

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