ingest_turn

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'candidate durable memory' does add meaningful context—it implies the stored interaction is not necessarily permanent and may be subject to later promotion or filtering. However, it does not mention auth requirements, idempotency, storage limits, or what happens to the candidate after ingestion.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the core meaning. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it is so terse that it leaves important operational context to be supplied elsewhere.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, four required parameters, a nested object, and a sibling retrieval tool, the description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of token, the shape of metadata, and any indication of side effects or the candidate-memory lifecycle.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four required parameters. Token, user_input, and assistant_output are reasonably inferable from their names, but metadata's structure and purpose are left completely opaque.

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 uses a specific verb ('store') and a concrete resource ('one interaction as candidate durable memory'), and the contrast with the sibling get_context makes the write-vs-read split apparent. It stops short of a full 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_context or clarify whether 'interaction' maps exactly to a 'turn'.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus get_context, no prerequisites, and no mention that this is the right choice for persisting conversation data. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and the verb 'store,' which is not enough guidance.

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