cuba_artefacto

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the optimistic-concurrency contract on put and that lock is a short lease, which is real behavioral context. However, it omits permission/auth needs, lease expiry consequences, and what patch/watch_hint/unlock actually do.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition followed by the two sharpest behavioral caveats. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 9-parameter, 7-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains only put and lock. The semantics of list, get, patch, unlock, and especially the non-obvious watch_hint are never touched, leaving the agent under-informed about most operating modes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters with enums and defaults. The description's mention of base_version and ttl/lease semantics largely restates what the schema already carries, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Shared versioned artifacts between agents on the same daemon (and peers)', plus the alias memory_artifact. An agent knows this is an artifact store, though it does not distinguish itself from any of the many sibling memory_* / cuba_* tools.

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?

Gives narrow action-level guidance: put needs base_version for optimistic concurrency, lock is a short lease. But with seven enum actions (list/get/put/patch/lock/unlock/watch_hint), it never says when to use one versus another or versus a sibling store, leaving most routing to inference.

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