veto_memory_store

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds that it stores entries for cross-session retrieval, but does not disclose behaviors like duplicate handling or size limits.

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 sentences, front-loading the main action and then adding a critical usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the well-documented schema and simple storage functionality, the description covers the key points: what is stored, where, and a usage hint. It could mention return values or confirmation, but is largely 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the guideline about searching before storing is helpful context.

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 clearly states the verb 'Stores' and the resource 'knowledge entry', specifying entry types (solution, pattern, error, reference, decision). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veto_memory_search (retrieval) and veto_memory_delete (removal) by focusing on storage.

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 instruction 'Search before storing to avoid duplicates' provides clear context for when to use the tool, implying a pre-requisite step. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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