save_improvement_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Save') but does not reveal whether it creates a new record or overwrites an existing one, whether the company must already exist, or any other side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 immediately states the action and the object. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word adds value.

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?

The tool has a complex input schema (nested objects, many required fields), but the schema itself is comprehensive and fully documents the structure. The description supplies the overall purpose while the schema covers the parameters. The main gap is the lack of any mention of return value or post-save behavior, but for a save operation the purpose is clear enough to be considered mostly complete.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including examples (e.g., company_name in kebab-case). The description adds only a high-level grouping of parameters ('prompts, analysis, and test results') without providing syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Save') and resource ('complete improvement cycle'), and clarifies the contents ('prompts, analysis, and test results') and scope ('for a specific company'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_draft_prompt, which only saves a single prompt.

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 context is implied: it is used after an improvement cycle has been completed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., save_draft_prompt) or when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusionary detail that would merit a higher score.

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