store_case

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic 'store' action. It lacks information on effects (e.g., what gets created, if it overwrites, idempotency), auth requirements, or performance implications, which is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable and the information is front-loaded.

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 tool has 11 parameters (4 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, system effect, or limitations. While the schema descriptions are thorough, the overall context for invoking the tool is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is documented with reasonable detail. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Store a reusable case as durable memory' and lists concrete examples (debugging fix, continuity cleanup, etc.). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like store_memory or store_skill by focusing on problem-solution pairs, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you identify a concrete problem-and-solution pair worth reusing across future windows' and lists example scenarios. It provides clear context for when to apply this tool but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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