store_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'durable memory' and 'reusable across future windows,' implying persistence and cross-session usage. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like how duplicates are handled (despite canonicalKey in schema), whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects on existing memory. This is adequate but incomplete 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate usage guidance. No fluff, no repetition of schema content. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters including a nested object and enum, but the schema covers their meaning. The description provides solid when-to-use context but omits how a stored case integrates with retrieval or other sibling tools, and doesn't mention output or confirmation. For an agent to invoke correctly, the description plus schema are sufficient, but it lacks deeper system integration 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., scope format, debugFraming dimensions). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond naming the 'problem-and-solution pair' which maps to problem and solutionSteps. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 stores a 'reusable case as durable memory' and provides concrete examples (debugging fix, continuity cleanup). It has a specific verb and resource, and the examples help distinguish it from vague memory tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like store_memory or store_workflow_pattern, which also store knowledge.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you identify a concrete problem-and-solution pair worth reusing across future windows.' It lists several example scenarios. It doesn't name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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