soma_cold_put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a sha256 reference is returned and that the body is kept out of context, but says nothing about permissions, overwrite semantics, or failure modes for a write operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral fact. Nothing is padded.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description is adequate for a one-parameter write tool. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, more context on side effects or constraints would help an agent call it safely.

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?

The single parameter 'text' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies the argument holds a large artifact body; it adds no detail on format, size limits, or encoding.

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: placing a large artifact into the cold tier. The contrast with soma_cold_get (store vs retrieve) is inferable from the name and the 'large artifact' framing, though the description never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'Большой артефакт' implies when this tool is preferred over in-context storage like soma_remember, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no reference to any alternative tool.

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