Metis — Focus Keep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that an item is saved; it says nothing about required permissions, whether it creates or overwrites, deduplication by item_id, or what 'further reflection' triggers. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action is stated first. It is appropriately terse, though given the tool's complexity the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin to let an agent call this correctly. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but required distinctions between the focus_* siblings and the meaning of key inputs are missing.

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% across six parameters (slug, title, url, kind, note, item_id). The description loosely maps 'item' and 'focus area' but never explains slug vs title vs url, the meaning of kind, or how item_id dedupes. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Save') and resource ('an item to a focus area's safe'), and the phrase 'for further reflection' hints at intent. However, the metaphorical term 'safe' is undefined and it does not differentiate itself from near-namesakes like focus_safe, focus_decline, or focus_explore, leaving an agent to guess at the boundary between them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternative sibling tools such as focus_safe, focus_decline, or focus_explore. The only clue is the vague 'for further reflection', which is not enough to route an agent among this dense sisterhood of focus_* tools.

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