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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a notable behavioral trait: every preset is scored per field, and on decay it automatically regenerates from `source_url` and bumps a version. It also warns that without `source_url` the preset can never self-heal. This adds genuinely useful runtime behavior context beyond the simple read/write hints.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, how it is used later, and the key self-healing caveat. The most actionable information (store, reuse, source_url) is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 tool with six parameters and nested objects, the description covers the important behavioral consequences (self-healing, version bumps, inability to heal without source_url) while the schema covers parameter details. The only minor gap is that the return value is not explicitly described, but 'reused by id' strongly implies a preset id is returned, so the description remains adequately 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents `name`, `parser`, `fields`, `render`, `auto_heal`, and `source_url`. The description adds emphasis on `source_url` for self-healing, but that is already reflected in the schema. No significant new parameter meaning is introduced beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store a generated parser under a name so it can be reused by id.' This clearly distinguishes saving a preset from sibling tools like generate_parser, heal_parser_preset, and list_parser_presets. It also immediately conveys the post-condition (future reuse via preset_id).

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 gives clear practical context: save a parser if you want to reuse it in scrape via `preset_id` instead of repeating selectors. It also advises providing `source_url` to enable self-healing. It does not explicitly contrast with heal_parser_preset, but the intended workflow is evident enough that no exclusions are needed.

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