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

Annotations declare write, non-destructive, closed-world, and the description substantiates that by spelling out merge semantics: verified pin tables are appended, and pre-existing verified entries for parts not re-looked-up are preserved. It does not state whether the markdown body overwrites the prior dossier, which is the one behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information (format expectations, merge behavior, missing-part reporting). Dense but not padded, though the parenthetical heading list is slightly long.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the response surface by explaining that non-existent (library, name) entries are reported with catalog candidates. Combined with the annotation safety profile and full parameter coverage, only overwrite/versioning behavior is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by prescribing the required markdown section headings the 'markdown' string must contain and by framing 'design_id' in terms of the create_design/list_designs origin. This adds real meaning beyond the two terse 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?

States a specific verb ('Store') plus the exact resource ('the research dossier') and enumerates its expected section structure (## Parts list, ## Power rails, ## Topology constraints, ## Notes). No sibling tool competes for this action, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied by the workflow reference ('as the research guide describes') and the prerequisite of having performed lookups, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Adequate but leaves the trigger condition to inference.

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