save_content_idea

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Save' implies a write/persist operation, but the description does not mention whether the operation inserts a new record, updates an existing one, handles duplicates, requires any permissions, or what the response contains.

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, readable sentence with no wasted words, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. It loses a point because it is so sparse that it leaves important context for other dimensions unaddressed.

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 11 parameters, 6 required fields, no annotations, and a sibling set with overlapping content-save actions, this description is too minimal to fully orient an agent. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, but usage context and behavioral caveats are still missing.

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%, and the description adds no meaning about the fields beyond saying the idea is 'structured.' While the schema property names and enums are reasonably self-descriptive, the description itself does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter-level guidance.

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 identifies a distinct resource ('structured content idea'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like save_content_asset or save_interview_answer, so it misses the extra differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 phrase 'for later development' implies an intended workflow stage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_content_asset, save_interview_answer, or add_article. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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