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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description's main added value is the explicit 'Sends NOTHING' clarification, which prevents the agent from expecting email dispatch. It does not disclose other behaviors like whether existing contact data is overwritten or what the response contains, but this is acceptable given the simple scope.

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 very short and front-loaded, with each sentence adding at least one piece of distinct information: what is stored, that nothing is sent, and the required prerequisite. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 the moderate parameter count and sparse annotations, the description provides important operational context ('required before upload-url') and a key side-effect clarification ('Sends NOTHING'). However, it does not clarify what happens on repeat calls, whether job_id must reference an existing job, or what the tool returns, which an agent may need to know for correct invocation.

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 only 60%, and the description mostly repeats parameter names from the title rather than adding semantic detail. It does not explain job_id, consent, or the interaction between move_date and the separate set_move_date sibling tool. The schema covers some fields well, but the description fails to compensate for the gaps.

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 the specific verb 'Store' with a clear resource: customer email, optional name, and move date. It also distinguishes itself from send-related tools by stating 'Sends NOTHING', which helps separate it from siblings like send_resume_link.

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 'required before upload-url' gives useful sequencing context, implying this tool must be called before creating an upload URL. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring set_move_date when only the move date needs updating.

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