store_routing_pattern

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose key behaviors such as whether the pattern_key must be unique, whether existing patterns are overwritten, or any side effects. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, succinct sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though it is perhaps too sparse to cover the full complexity of the tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, six parameters including a nested metadata object, and a complex domain (routing patterns), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow of storing and retrieving patterns, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is self-explanatory (e.g., pattern_key, agent_name, confidence), a 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Store') and the resource ('successful routing pattern'), with a purpose ('cross-workflow learning'). It distinguishes from read-only pattern retrieval siblings but does not differentiate from other storage tools like store_session_context or store_contexts_batch, so it's not 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many storage-related sibling tools (store_session_context, store_contexts_batch, etc.), the description does not explain when storing a routing pattern is appropriate or when another store tool should be used instead.

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