save_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a uniqueness constraint for names per project_id, but it does not disclose what happens on duplicate names (e.g., overwrite vs error), whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the return value looks like. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key constraint. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with many parameters and behaviors. The description does not clarify what constitutes a 'search request', how the uniqueness constraint behaves in edge cases, or any error conditions. It is too sparse for an agent to reliably select and invoke this tool without additional context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and a complex nested SaveSearchRequest object. The description only adds meaning for 'name' and 'project_id' (uniqueness), while providing no explanation for the many other parameters (query, filters, count, diversity, labels, etc.). The schema's field titles and defaults offer some self-documentation, but the description does not compensate for the low 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 'Saves the search request with a name' (검색 요청을 이름 붙여 저장한다), which is a specific verb+resource. It also adds the constraint 'unique name per project_id' (project_id 별 unique name), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_saved_searches, delete_saved_search, and run_saved_search.

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 makes the tool's usage context clear: you use this to save a search request under a name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the purpose is unambiguous and aligns with the CRUD nature of the sibling tools.

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