storeResource

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description usefully discloses that the payload persists server-side and that a resourceId is returned, but says nothing about lifetime, scoping to a session, or what happens on conflict, all of which matter for a store operation. Acceptable but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, accepted formats, and return value all arrive immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits the expiry/scoping behavior that governs how long a returned resourceId remains usable, which is central to a tool meant to produce references for later calls.

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 schema already documents kind, data, sessionId, resourceId, and ttlSeconds. The description names the accepted kinds, which matches the enum, but adds no formatting, size, or TTL semantics beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (Store) and the three supported resource kinds (GeoJSON, CZML, JSON), plus the outcome (a compact resourceId). An agent can tell this is the create/persist side of the resource lifecycle. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from listResources or deleteResource, keeping it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for later tool calls' implies the usage pattern (store once, reference many times), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no pointer to related siblings such as listResources or deleteResource. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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