store_analysis

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that fields are merged with non-empty new values overwriting existing ones, which is a key behavior. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation requires special permissions, what the response looks like, or whether it creates a new record vs. updates (though merge implies both). This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 structured with a clear first sentence naming the action, followed by a parameter key list and a merge behavior note. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. The list of keys is somewhat long but necessary given the permissive schema.

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 tool accepts a free-form dictionary, the description provides enough context for basic use: required ticket_id, optional fields, and merge semantics. It does not describe return values or error conditions, and there is no output schema, but the essential behavior for calling is present. The lack of explicit differentiation among siblings like update_analysis is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter 'data' with additionalProperties: true and no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by providing a long list of accepted keys within the data object and clarifies the required ticket_id. However, it doesn't explain the value types or nesting expectations beyond being a dictionary, and the 'etc.' suggests the list is not exhaustive.

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 verb ('Store') with a clear resource ('completed triage analysis in the Historical KB') and lists accepted fields, distinguishing it as a write operation from sibling tools like get_analysis or delete_analysis. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling update_analysis, but the merge/overwrite behavior implies updating existing records.

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 description explains when to use it: to store a completed triage analysis, and the merge behavior when a ticket already has a record. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of storing completed analyses is clear enough to differentiate from read or search tools.

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