save_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver one genuinely important behavior: 'Store summaries only, never message bodies, codes or passwords' — a hard privacy constraint an agent could not infer elsewhere. It leaves the core write semantics unstated, though: whether a second call overwrites or appends to today's record, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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. The scope statement comes first and the safety constraint follows immediately, both earning their place.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the privacy directive covers the highest-risk aspect. The remaining omission is overwrite/merge semantics for a write tool with no annotations to fall back 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 coverage is 0% and the single 'record' parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties: true, so the description must define the payload — and it does, enumerating the content categories (URLs, checked times, window, inboxes, calendars, failures). It falls short of giving key names or types, leaving the agent to infer the object shape.

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 pairs the specific verb 'save' with a concrete resource ('today's source record') and enumerates its contents (story URLs, checked times, collection window, inboxes/calendars read, failures), which is far more informative than the bare name. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like save_settings or journal_status, but the domain is clearly distinct enough to identify on sight.

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 phrase 'today's source record' implies a daily, post-collection save, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, whether it must precede other edition-building steps, or what to do instead. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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