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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the retention window (up to 30 minutes), the caller identity, and the downstream consumer that makes the stored value readable. The stated behavior is fully consistent with the annotations, with no mutation of user data implied despite write-shaped persistence.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the caller restriction and TTL are front-loaded before the pointer to get_tool_result. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.

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 one-parameter persistence helper with annotations and no output schema, the description covers caller, lifetime, and consumer. The only gap is the meaning of call_id, which is left implicit.

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% and call_id has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only implies that the identifier selects the call whose result is kept, without saying what call_id refers to or what happens if an unknown id is passed.

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 concrete verb and resource ('keeps the full result of a call'), the precise origin of that call ('the user ran from a panel'), and the retention window. It also contrasts itself with the sibling that reads the data ('so get_tool_result can read it'), so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'Used only by Desktop Commander panels' plus the hard exclusion 'The assistant never calls this.' No inference is required, and the reader tool is named as the complement.

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