existdb_store_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does state the operation creates or replaces a document, which implies overwriting existing files, and mentions the HTTP PUT method. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements (username/password), error handling for invalid XML, or the return/response format, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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?

A single sentence containing the essential verb, resource, and method without redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient, earning a high score.

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 a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this bare description is insufficient. It omits authentication context (endpoint/username/password), does not explain the consequences of replacing an existing document beyond the word 'replaces,' and lacks any guidance on error conditions or response. The description does not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool 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 only 50% (content, filename, collection have descriptions; endpoint, password, username do not). The tool description adds no information about any parameters—it doesn't explain what collection, filename, content, or auth fields are needed. It merely restates the document type (XML), which the schema already provides. With no compensation for the undocumented parameters, this scores low.

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 uses a specific verb 'Stores' with parenthetical 'creates or replaces' to clarify the write semantics, identifies the resource (XML document in an eXist-db collection), and notes the HTTP method PUT. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get/delete/execute.

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 implies a use case (storing documents into eXist-db) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like authentication or collection creation. It would benefit from saying 'Use this to upload or overwrite documents; see create_collection for creating collections.'

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