kvp_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful behavior: the response includes budget remaining, which suggests the operation consumes budget. However, it does not mention overwrite semantics, whether the key is created or updated, default expiration behavior, or error conditions.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and adds a relevant response detail (budget remaining) without redundancy.

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 simple key-value write tool, the description covers the primary action and the response's budget field, but it omits guidance on TTL, overwrite behavior, and why a budget-related response matters. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would help an agent invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names namespace, key, and value and indicates value is a string, but it adds no detail about namespace/key constraints, value length limits, or the meaning of expirationTtl. The optional fourth parameter is entirely undocumented in the description.

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 names a specific verb ('Store'), a concrete resource (a string value under a namespace/key), and clearly implies a write operation distinct from sibling tools like kvp_get, kvp_delete, and kvp_list. An agent can identify what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kvp_get, kvp_delete, or keys_create. The sibling names imply a contrast, but the description itself does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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