store_design

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

Although annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds substantive context: it replaces any stored design of that name, design=X copies spec plus parts/wires/pipes, undo history is not copied, and stored files are re-read on every call. These details materially affect how an agent should use the tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and a concrete usage loop, then adds only operationally relevant details about replacement, copying, persistence, and return value. The length is justified by the mutation and cross-tool workflow being described.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the important workflow, replacement semantics, copied state, persistence behavior, and return value. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without needing to infer hidden behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters well. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that design=X copies the full draft state including edit_parts changes and connections, and that patch can invalidate parts requiring reconnection.

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 states a specific verb and resource: keep/store a design spec on the server without writing a vehicle. It clearly distinguishes the tool from preview_hull, save_hull, load_design, and list_designs through the described typical loop and replacement behavior.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: call store_design with a spec once, use preview_hull to try changes, then store_design with a patch to keep them, and use save_hull when ready to write the vehicle. It also names related tools such as list_designs and edit_parts, so alternatives and sequencing are clear.

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