save_insight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the card is stored for later retrieval but says nothing about persistence guarantees, permissions, whether saves are idempotent or reversible, or what happens on duplicate subjects.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then a compact bulleted value list. No filler; the only minor cost is that the taxonomy bullets occupy space without covering the other parameters.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is materially incomplete: three of four parameters and all behavioral traits are undocumented, so an agent lacks enough to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only explains insight_type (with suggested values), while subject, content, and related_idea are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: saving a design insight/learning card for later lookup and reuse. Clear what it does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like capture_idea or list_insights, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 insight_type taxonomy (upper/reverse/github/risk/decision) gives implied guidance on what kind of insight fits here, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of capture_idea as an alternative, and no prerequisites.

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