mind_vault_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: it never accepts the secret over MCP, which is security-relevant context an agent could not infer from the schema. Beyond that it reveals nothing about what happens on call, and the deprecation status is stated inconsistently ('deprecated' vs 'removed in v2.0').

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 deprecation notice and redirect are correctly front-loaded, but the trailing parenthetical '(Explain how to store a secret (never accepts the secret over MCP))' is confusing, nested, and reads like an authoring instruction that leaked into the text. That fragment does not earn its place and actively obscures the message.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is just adequate: it tells the agent to migrate to mind_vault. However, it never resolves the core ambiguity of whether this tool is still callable or returns an error, and it leaves the security constraint sentence unexplained. An agent has the migration path but not a complete picture of current 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'key' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming guidance for the key beyond what the schema already says, and the parenthetical about never accepting the secret arguably raises a question the parameter docs do not answer.

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's primary function is a deprecation notice, and it names the replacement (mind_vault with action="store") clearly enough to distinguish intent. However, the stated purpose is muddled by the parenthetical '(Explain how to store a secret...)', which reads like leaked internal text rather than a purpose statement. An agent can tell this tool stores a secret but not cleanly what the tool itself does versus what it documents.

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 explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: mind_vault(action="store"), and states the condition (this tool is deprecated/removed in v2.0). That is stronger than most definitions. It loses a point because the 'removed in v2.0' claim conflicts with the tool still being present and callable, leaving the agent unsure whether it works at all.

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