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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the token requirement but does not explain what happens on invalid token, whether keys are overwritten, or any side effects. For a write operation, this is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded. It states the action and prerequisite. Although under-specified, the structure is clean and efficient with no fluff.

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 3 parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not cover error handling, return behavior, or parameter semantics beyond the token mention. For a mutation tool, more context is needed.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only implies 'key' and 'value' through the action, and 'token' is described as coming from fomite_vault_create regulator. It does not explain constraints, formats, or the token's role clearly. Very little added meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Store a value under a key') and the resource ('fomite memory vault'). It also distinguishes this write operation from siblings like fomite_vault_get and fomite_vault_list by implying a write vs read distinction.

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 explicitly requires the token from fomite_vault_create, which indicates a prerequisite and suggests a sequence. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get/list tools, but the requirement and action imply usage for writing, which is clear enough given sibling names.

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