store_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: it replaces any stored design of that name (destructive overwrite), and stored designs are plain JSON files re-read on every call so on-disk edits take effect immediately. It stops short of permissions, error behavior, or concurrency concerns, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then proceeds through the loop example and the two footnotes (spec_path, on-disk editing). The inline examples are dense but each earns its place by showing the calling pattern; a small amount of repetition in the loop 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the stateful persistence model that is the crux of this tool. The only real omission is the 'preset' parameter's role and any note on name collisions beyond the overwrite warning.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains spec (initial payload), patch (only changes), design (reference to a stored design), spec_path (read spec from a .json file instead of sending it), and name via the examples. Only 'preset' is left unexplained, and the unique semantics of patch/design/spec_path go well beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: storing a design spec on the server so later calls can send only changes. It explicitly separates this tool's role from siblings by naming preview_hull (try a change), save_hull (write the vehicle), and load_design (read it back), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Provides an explicit typical loop with concrete invocations: store_design once, then preview_hull with a patch to try changes, then store_design with a patch to persist, and save_hull when ready. When-to-use is demonstrated rather than implied, and alternatives are named with their distinct roles.

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