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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that memories are indexed for search and requires two envelopes, but omits critical details: idempotency, overwrite behavior on duplicate key, error conditions, auth requirements, and what 'locker:write' implies. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 reasonably concise but could be more structured. It front-loads the main purpose but includes envelope details in a dense block. At 4 sentences, it is efficient but could be improved with clear bullet points for param explanations.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (a receipt? status?), nor does it cover all parameters. For a tool of this complexity, the description falls short of providing a complete picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains key, content, summary, and namespace, but fails to describe tags, receipt_id, supersedes, and the envelope parameter structure (despite mentioning envelopes in the description, the parameter type is not clarified). Several parameters are left undocumented.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Store a structured memory record in your Nukez locker' and mentions indexing for recall, distinguishing it from siblings like nukez_recall. The verb 'store' combined with the resource 'memory record' provides clear purpose.

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?

Some guidance is provided: namespaces for organization, required parameters, and envelope construction. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like nukez_store, and does not mention scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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