write_vault

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that duplicates cause nothing to be written and returns a {duplicate: true, ...} shape, that tag_warnings are advisory rather than blocking, that a body key in extra_fields is rerouted, and that a conflicting uid is refused with {errors}. The only notable omission is irreversibility/undo (undo_last_vault_change exists but is not mentioned).

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?

Long but organized: behavior and return shape first, then the duplicate workflow, then an arg-by-arg list. The prose is mostly load-bearing, though a few lines (e.g., the repeated emphasis on tag_warnings being advisory and 'The write has already happened') could be tightened.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies both return shapes (success and duplicate), the error case, and full argument semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle both outcomes.

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 0% and the schema has no enums, so the description must compensate — and it does: it enumerates all valid type values, all domain values, tags conventions ('3-6 freeform lowercase hyphenated'), author conventions, and the shape of relations/references dicts. It also explains the non-obvious extra_fields/body/uid interactions. This is meaning the schema alone cannot supply.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Write a new item to the Loci vault.' It also makes the read/write boundary explicit versus patch_vault for updates. It does not distinguish itself from write_skill, save_asset, or write_meta, so a sibling ambiguity remains for a few edge cases.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: on duplicate, ask the user whether to update via patch_vault or re-call with allow_duplicate=true, and gates allow_duplicate to only after the user picks 'save as new'. It also tells the agent what to do with tag_warnings (surface and offer the fix). This is a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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