store_turn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as 'save' (a write operation) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or whether it overwrites existing data. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action and the data involved. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Save'. However, it could benefit from breaking out the list or adding structure for readability.

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 complexity of the tool (10 parameters, 5 required, multiple enums), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of each field, the expected format, or how the turn will be stored or retrieved. Sibling tools (e.g., 'pre_turn', 'merge', 'summary') hint at a broader system, but no contextual connection is provided.

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 description lists the fields (keyword, topic, domain, etc.) but adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the input schema. With 70% schema coverage, the schema already describes most parameters, but the description does not explain their semantics, relationships, or format constraints beyond the listing.

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 tool saves a conversation turn and lists the data fields (keyword, topic, domain, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'confirm', 'dedup', or 'export', which have different purposes. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a 'turn' in context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto' or 'extract'. There are no prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusions mentioned. The agent has to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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