store_put

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a write operation but doesn't clarify whether it creates new records or updates existing ones, what happens on conflicts, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the data model, error handling, return values, or operational constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (3 required), the description provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'app_id', 'collection', 'content', 'domain', or 'id' represent, their formats, or how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 a value') and target resource ('to the local SQLite store'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like store_get (read) and store_delete (remove). However, it doesn't specify what kind of value or data format, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being manipulated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like store_get for reading or store_delete for removal. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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