immune_crystallize

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

The description does add behavior beyond a bare write operation: it gates persistence on success, scopes storage to 'server-local' memory, and indicates the memory is intended for later recall. However, with no annotations, it leaves out important behavior such as whether repeated calls overwrite existing memory, what happens on conflict or failure, and whether there is any eviction or capacity limit.

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 front-loads the core action. The slash in 'pattern/antibody outcome' introduces mild ambiguity, but structurally it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 four parameters, deeply nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, a single-purpose sentence is insufficient for correct invocation. The agent is missing semantic definitions for the nested fields, the meaning of `floor`, and any information about the persisted form or return value.

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 only names pattern, antibody, and outcome without explaining their contents or interrelations. The optional `floor` parameter is not mentioned at all, and the meaning of fields like detectionRate, falsePositiveRate, coverage, and cost is left entirely to inference from property names.

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 a specific action (persist) and a specific target (successful pattern/antibody outcome into server-local immune memory), and the phrase 'for later recall' helps separate it from the read-style sibling immune_recall. However, 'pattern/antibody outcome' is slightly ambiguous about whether the stored item is one composite thing or all three schema objects, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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 word 'successful' signals that this tool is meant for validated, persisted results rather than arbitrary ones, which is a real usage hint. It gives no explicit guidance about when to use it vs. immune_discover, immune_synthesize, immune_breed, or immune_cycle, and it does not name immune_recall as the read counterpart.

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