database.write_global

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'write,' implying mutation, but does not mention whether overwrites occur, idempotency, permissions needed, or side effects. The minimal description provides insufficient transparency.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. However, it is under-specified to the point of being insufficient. Every word is arguably necessary, but the description lacks essential details that would merit more sentences. It is concise at the expense of completeness.

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's simplicity (write a key-value pair), the description is not complete. There is no output schema, no explanation of return values, error handling, or behavior on key exists. The agent would lack context for using this tool effectively, especially compared to related tools like 'database.read_global' or 'database.create_bndb'.

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%—the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema's structure. It does not explain what 'key,' 'value,' or 'session_id' represent, their formats, constraints, or roles. This is a critical omission for a tool with three undocumented required parameters.

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: 'Write database global string key.' It clearly indicates the action (write) and the target (global string key in the database). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'database.read_global' tool, though the verb itself differentiates write from read.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'database.read_global' or other write tools. No context is provided for appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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