goldhold_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful non-obvious context: storage is done 'via relay and synced to Pinecone', implying an asynchronous or eventual-consistency pipeline. However, it omits side effects, failure modes, idempotency, and acknowledgment behavior, leaving important behavioral questions unanswered.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Save a memory to GoldHold'), and the architectural context in the second sentence earns its place by explaining persistence behavior.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and storage mechanism but leaves gaps around return/acknowledgment, eventual-consistency implications, and how this tool relates to the many GoldHold siblings. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully self-sufficient.

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 four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond framing the stored content as a 'memory', which does not exceed the baseline expected when the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Save' with the object 'a memory to GoldHold', clearly identifying this as a persistent write operation. It is distinguishable from read-style siblings like goldhold_memory_read, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. The relay/Pinecone detail reinforces storage semantics without obscuring 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Save a memory', and with many siblings such as goldhold_memory_read, goldhold_plan_fact, and goldhold_task_create, the agent receives little help choosing among them. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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