kv_key_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it 'writes' a pair, but does not reveal whether it overwrites existing keys, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. This lack of transparency is critical for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the core action ('Write') and resource. Every word is necessary, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the write behavior, return value, and any side effects. It only provides the basic operation, leaving the agent without essential context for a write tool. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 input schema describes all four parameters (namespace_id, key, value, metadata) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides adequate semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (write) and the resource (key-value pair to a KV namespace), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kv_key_get, kv_key_delete, and kv_keys_list. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone. Context signals are not part of the description and do not compensate for this gap.

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