save_run_digest

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It explains the expected digest format (compact line, | separated) and provides an example. It states returns a confirmation message. While it doesn't detail side effects or permissions, the simple read/write nature is well communicated.

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 moderately sized, well-organized with a docstring-like structure. It includes a clear header, usage context, parameter list, return value, and an example. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nesting, output schema exists), the description covers the workflow, parameter details, and output. It provides enough context for correct usage without being verbose.

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%, but the description adds meaning: activity_id is called a 'Strava activity ID' and digest format is detailed with an example. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool saves a digest for a run, with a specific context (generated by LLM or host). It distinguishes from siblings like add_run_note by specifying it's for the digest after get_pending_digests.

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 explicitly says 'Called after processing a digestion prompt from get_pending_digests()', giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for the intended workflow.

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