wisdom_store_transformed_fragments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose effects itself. It only says it stores fragments and optionally tracks compression metrics; it does not state whether storing overwrites existing fragments, requires a transform UUID, or has any side effects beyond persistence.

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 one sentence with no filler, and the primary purpose is stated first. Every phrase earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important calling context unstated: there is no mention of return values, error behavior, whether the operation is additive/overwriting, or how source_transform connects to existing transform records. The agent knows what to pass but not what to expect.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description does not need to repeat parameter definitions. It adds value by explaining that original_content is used for compression metrics, but does not add new meaning for fragments, project, or source_transform.

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 names a specific action ('Store fragments') and a specific resource ('fragments that were transformed by the host'), which distinguishes it from generic fragment creation. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the 'transformed by the host' qualifier gives enough scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wisdom_create_fragment or wisdom_transform_to_fragment. The phrase 'that were transformed by the host' implies the context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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