store_put

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (collection creation on first write, overwriting on re-put), ID auto-generation behavior, deviation thresholds and resulting actions, return shape, and scope constraints (manifest's store_scope). This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds essential detail (ID behavior, deviation semantics, return value, scope). There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return shape ({id, action}). It covers creation, overwrite, auto-ID, deviation behavior, and scope constraints, providing complete operational context for a 5-parameter tool with nested objects and no annotations.

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 adds meaningful semantics for record_id (pin vs auto-generate, overwrite), deviation (radians thresholds mapping to 'flag', 'stop', 'work_quiet'), and collection (named, created on first write). It does not explain app_id, leaving a small gap since schema coverage is 0%, but the majority of parameters are well-specified.

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 ('Write') and resource ('JSON record to a named SOIL collection'), and further distinguishes from siblings by explaining creation-on-first-write and overwrite behavior. It clearly communicates what the tool does and how it differs from store_get, store_delete, and other store operations.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: writing a JSON record, with options for pinning an ID or auto-generating one, and mentions the deviation classification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations (e.g., store_get for reads), so it lacks explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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