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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a write operation ('store') but provides no details about idempotency, overwrite behavior, return value, workspace scoping, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure beyond the verb itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and the artifact-kind list adds useful specificity without excess length.

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 an 8-parameter storage tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is incomplete. It lacks any mention of return behavior, storage semantics, interaction with recall/search, or workspace defaulting, leaving the agent to guess important operational context.

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 38%, so the description must compensate. It does not, beyond listing the artifact kinds that map to the 'kind' enum. The meanings of required fields like 'problem' or fields like 'why', 'solution', and 'confidence' are left entirely to inference from parameter names.

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 a specific verb ('Store') and a well-defined resource ('distilled knowledge artifact'), and enumerates the artifact kinds. This clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like wyrm_capture or wyrm_vault_put.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wyrm_capture or wyrm_recall. The description states the action but provides no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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