akb_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the response includes the canonical URI and that documents are automatically chunked and indexed for semantic search. This adds useful context about side effects (indexing) and response content, though it stops short of detailing error conditions or overwrite behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the essential action. Each sentence provides distinct value: the operation, the response URI and usage, and the automatic indexing side effect. No wasted words.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description clarifies the most critical contextual points: the canonical URI for addressing the document and automatic indexing. It explains the response enough for an agent to use the URI, and the schema covers the rest. It could be improved by noting that it creates new documents only (not updates) and perhaps an example of the URI.

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 covers all 14 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to restate them. It does add value by explaining the URI conventions (akb://vault/...), which relates to parameters like slug and parent, but this is more contextual than parameter-specific. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Store a new document.' It distinguishes from siblings like akb_put_file (file upload) and akb_update (updating existing docs) by explicitly stating it creates a new document. The additional detail about the canonical URI and automatic indexing reinforces the core purpose.

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 implies when to use it: for storing new documents that should be searchable and addressable via a canonical URI. It says 'Use that URI to address the document from every other tool,' which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., use akb_update for modifying existing docs).

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