put_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: naming constraints (filename-safe), overwrite with warning, and storage as .mdc files. This adds significant context beyond the bare schema, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.

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 concise (6 sentences) and well-structured with an initial summary followed by bullet-like points for single and bulk operations. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage modes, naming rules, and storage details. It lacks information on limits, error cases, or async behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a focused tool.

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 description adds meaning by explaining the two modes (single with name/text/metadata, bulk with contexts list) and the structure of the contexts items. However, there is a slight inconsistency: the schema marks name and text as optional, but the description implies they are required for single mode.

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 adds or updates context by name, supporting both single and bulk operations. It specifies the verb 'Add or update' and the resource 'context', and the purpose is distinct from siblings like delete_context and get_context.

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 usage for adding or updating context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings. The guidance is implied through the operation description but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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