store_workflow_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'store as durable memory' without addressing side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens on conflict. The schema includes a canonicalKey hinting at merge semantics, but the description does not mention this.

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 that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with usage context. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and operational semantics (e.g., how importance or scope affect behavior). An agent would need to fully parse the schema to use the tool effectively.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify parameter relationships or usage nuances.

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 verb 'store' and the resource 'reusable workflow pattern as durable memory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like store_memory by specifying the focus on workflows and giving concrete examples (startup continuity, debugging routines).

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool ('when you identify a repeatable process worth reusing across fresh windows') with specific examples. However, it does not mention when not to use it or directly compare to alternative tools like store_memory, leaving room for confusion.

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