store_cue

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects such as whether the programmer is cleared after storing, whether existing cues are affected, or if authorization is needed. It only mentions a return message, leaving significant gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured: a single-purpose sentence, followed by a parameter list, return type, and examples. It is concise without unnecessary words, and the purpose is front-loaded. Each section 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?

Given the output schema (returns str) and parameter descriptions, the tool is fairly complete for a store operation. Examples clarify typical usage. However, it misses behavioral context like side effects on programmer state, which would elevate it further. Still, it is not incomplete given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all five parameters: cue_id as 'Cue number to store', name as optional, merge as 'Merge new values into existing cue', overwrite as 'Overwrite existing cue entirely', and noconfirm as 'Suppress store confirmation pop-up'. This adds clear semantics beyond the schema's type/default values.

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 clearly states 'Store the current programmer state as a cue', identifying the verb (store) and resource (programmer state as a cue). It distinguishes the tool's core function from siblings like store_cue_across_sequences, but does not explicitly differentiate within the description, though the tool name itself provides context.

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 provides examples but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like store_preset or store_cue_across_sequences. No mention of prerequisites, when merge vs overwrite should be used, or when noconfirm is appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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