creds_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that passwords/hashes are encrypted at rest, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether storing overwrites existing entries, how duplicates are handled, whether any authentication is required, or what the success/failure response looks like. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. It avoids fluff and each line provides needed information. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list is necessary because the schema lacks descriptions. The front-loading of the main purpose is good.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core function and parameter semantics well. However, it omits operational context such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, or whether the vault must be initialized. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete for all potential questions an agent might have when invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a list of all 8 parameters with brief explanations, including examples (e.g., service types, source_tool values) and a conditional note ('leave empty if only hash available'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's mere property names, though it could be slightly more detailed for service/port validation.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Store discovered credentials in the vault' with the added detail of encryption at rest. This uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('credentials in the vault'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like creds_list, creds_use, and creds_delete by indicating it is the write operation for credential storage.

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: when you have discovered credentials that need to be persisted, this is the tool to use. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creds_use, creds_list) or any exclusions. The parameter descriptions hint at the intended context but do not offer clear selection criteria.

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