store_workflow_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full transparency. It mentions 'durable memory' indicating persistence, but doesn't disclose merge/update behavior via canonicalKey, whether it overwrites, or any other operational details. It adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, both purposeful. The first explains the core function, the second provides usage context and examples. No wasted words.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives solid context (what and when). It lacks details on return values and update semantics, but the examples and clarity make it fairly complete for an agent.

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 100%, with all 10 parameters having descriptions. The description doesn't add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('reusable workflow pattern as durable memory'). It differentiates from sibling tools like store_memory or store_skill by focusing on workflow patterns and provides 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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use ('when you identify a repeatable process worth reusing across fresh windows') with examples. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the 'when' is clear and memorable.

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