store_interaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only says 'store' without disclosing write behavior, idempotency, auth requirements, or how metadata/idempotency_key affect the operation. The schema mentions idempotency_key, but its behavioral implications are not explained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and purpose, though it skips details that other dimensions capture.

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 tool has 5 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, the description is too thin. It omits return values, idempotency semantics, and any relationship to session context storage, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%; all five parameters, including metadata and idempotency_key, have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description 'Store a conversation interaction for context' clearly identifies the action (store) and resource (conversation interaction), with a purpose ('for context'). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from sibling tools like store_session_context or store_contexts_batch, which also store context-related data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling store/context tools. The description gives no conditions, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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