credential_store

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 implies a write/persist operation into a vault but says nothing about whether an existing entry is overwritten, whether authorization is needed, whether the operation is durable or reversible, or what a successful store returns.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is not padded, though its brevity here stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters documenting how the credential is selected, the description leaves too much unresolved: overwrite behavior, prerequisites (loaded profile/session), and the relationship to credential_new and credential.list are all absent.

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 schema exposes zero parameters, which would normally set a 4 baseline, but the description implies an input ("a login the profile already has") that the schema does not surface, leaving unclear how the target login is identified — presumably implicit session/profile state, which the description should have stated.

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 uses a concrete verb ("Put ... into the vault") on a concrete resource (a login the profile already has), and the qualifier "the profile already has" implicitly distinguishes it from credential_new. It is clear enough to separate from credential_new, but it never names a sibling or clarifies vault vs. form-fill semantics versus credential_fill.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to use credential_store, credential_new, or credential_fill for a given credential, nor whether any precondition (an existing loaded profile) is required.

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