Add a clause

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the primary side effect ('Save'), and explicitly states what the operation returns: stored clause id, title, category, tags, detected variables, and the updated count of owned clauses. This gives the agent a concrete model of the operation's effect, though it does not cover duplicate handling, permissions, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then the return value. Every phrase contributes useful information, and there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a helpful list of return fields and gives the agent a clear sense of the operation's outcome. The input schema covers parameter details thoroughly. It is not fully complete because it omits the output format and any caveats about limits or duplicate titles, but those are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 86%, so the structured schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds only a small amount of parameter-related meaning by mentioning that variables are 'detected in its body,' which relates to the body placeholder behavior already covered in the schema. No further compensation is required.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save a reusable contract or proposal clause to the library.' This clearly indicates a creation/persistence operation and makes the tool understandable next to siblings like clause_update, clause_delete, and clause_get. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from clause_import or other similarly named tools.

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 implies this tool is for adding a new clause to the library, which is clear context for creation. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over clause_update, clause_import, or contract_assemble, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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