function.metadata_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'store function metadata by key'. It does not state whether overwrites are allowed, whether the metadata persists across sessions, whether there are size limits on values, or if there are side effects on other tools (e.g., does this affect 'metadata.query' results?). The description is too terse for a tool that likely mutates shared state.

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 single sentence is short and to the point, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word is necessary but insufficient. For a 4-parameter tool with 0 schema coverage, this is closer to minimal viable than optimally concise; the sentence lacks front-loaded action context but is simple enough not to be wasteful.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know what 'function_start' accepts, whether 'value' can be a string/number/object, or what happens if the key already exists. Sibling tools like 'metadata.store' likely do something similar, but no differentiation is provided. This is inadequate for an AI to use correctly.

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 0%, meaning the description is the sole source for parameter understanding. The description fails to explain what 'session_id', 'function_start', 'key', and 'value' are. 'function_start' has a complex oneOf schema (integer or string) with no indication of when each type is used. The value param is {} (any type) with no constraints listed. The description adds no semantic value over the raw 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?

The description clearly states it stores metadata by key, with a specific verb ('store') and resource ('function metadata'). However, among over 100 sibling tools there are 'metadata.store', 'metadata.query', and 'function.metadata_query', and this tool is named 'function.metadata_store'. The description does not distinguish it from 'metadata.store' or other metadata tools, which is a missed opportunity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'metadata.store', 'function.metadata_query', or 'metadata.query'. There is no hint of prerequisites (e.g., does it require a session?), whether the metadata is persistent or ephemeral, or what key-value restrictions exist. This leaves the agent guessing about context.

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