Store an object

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

Discloses client-side AES-256-GCM encryption, platform inability to read, key loss consequences, zero-byte rejection, and replication/cryptographic verification. Annotations already indicate destructive nature, so description adds valuable detail beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: main action, encryption details, zero-byte rule, durability guarantees. No redundancy or fluff.

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 the four parameters are fully described in schema and the description covers critical behaviors (encryption, zero-byte rejection, replication), the tool is well-specified for an AI agent to use safely.

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%, and the description adds context for 'encrypt' (client-side, risk of key loss) and clarifies the distinction between 'content' and 'local_path'. This adds meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions.

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 states 'Store a local file or inline content as an object' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from siblings 'get' and 'usage'.

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?

Provides clear conditions: encryption warning ('key loss = data loss') and zero-byte rejection. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use vs. alternatives, though the context and tool name make it obvious.

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