Store Scoped Context

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

Annotations only state that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: context is redacted, provenance-labeled, and remains historical until independently reverified, which clarifies the write semantics and trust implications beyond the schema and annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and key qualities; the second adds an important stateful caveat. Every clause 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?

The description, combined with full schema coverage and an output schema, gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of usage differentiation from siblings, but the core behavioral and parameter context is solid.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level semantic frame but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states about redaction and provenance.

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 specific verb ('Add') and resource ('context to the current session'), and adds meaningful qualifiers ('redacted, provenance-labeled') that distinguish it from generic storage tools. It clearly reads as the write-side counterpart to retrieve_context, and the title reinforces a scoped-context 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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as record_outcome, checkpoint_save, or retrieve_context. It states what it does, but not when it should be preferred or avoided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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