Save an entry

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write), it discloses merge semantics ('existing fields are kept unless the entry replaces them') and three concrete refusal conditions, which is real behavioral context. It does not say what a refusal returns or whether missing directories are created, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three dense sentences with the write target front-loaded and no filler. The refusal list is compact and each clause carries information, though the parenthetical about checkout locations makes the second sentence slightly tangled.

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 and a mutation tool, the description covers location, merge behavior, validation failures, and the next step, which is most of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps are the response shape and whether parent paths are auto-created.

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 carry the parameter burden. It adds meaningful constraints for category (must be known) and id (must agree with the entry), and pins one entry field (adapter cannot be null), but the structure of the nested 'entry' object is left entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb pair (write/update) and an exact resource template, catalog/<category>/<id>.json, plus the two possible workspaces. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like catalog_get, though it never names which sibling it replaces (e.g. draft_entry).

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 states the two contexts for use (your own directory vs. the platform-mcp checkout when contributing) and prescribes the follow-up step 'Run lint_entry next,' giving a clear workflow position. It stops short of any explicit when-not-to-use condition or a named alternative for drafting.

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