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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses encryption at rest with AES-256-GCM, per-account keying, the important non-zero-knowledge caveat for cloud-tier, and that re-putting a name overwrites the existing secret.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose comes first, followed by the encryption details and the critical overwrite caveat, all in a compact and scannable structure.

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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is stored, how it is protected, the security caveat, and the overwrite semantics. It could add return-value or error behavior, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by clarifying that the secret is keyed by name and that re-putting a name overwrites the stored value. It does not add detail for hint or workspace, but the schema already documents those adequately.

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?

Clearly identifies the action ('Store'), the resource ('vault'), and the content type ('encrypted secret'), with examples of expected values. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wyrm_vault_get or wyrm_remember, but the vault-specific, encrypted-secret framing makes its role clear.

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 implies this is for storing secrets, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, or name related tools such as wyrm_vault_list, wyrm_vault_get, or wyrm_remember.

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