hb_garden_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does imply upsert semantics ('store or update'), which is a genuine behavioral trait, but says nothing about overwrite behavior on existing keys, permissions, durability, or what is returned.

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 that is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is thin rather than tight — the brevity comes 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify overwrite behavior, scope of the store, and error cases. None of that is present, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the two parameters (key, value) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, length, or naming-convention details beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb phrase 'store or update' plus 'an entry' does communicate a key-value upsert, which implicitly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like hb_garden_get and hb_garden_find. However, 'entry' and the 'garden' namespace are never grounded in a domain, so the purpose is only vaguely conveyed.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many overlapping write/state siblings (hb_mem_store, hb_state_mem_set, hb_kb_ingest). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of when an update is preferable to a create.

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