Store Artifact

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

Annotations declare mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. Description adds content-addressing behavior (idempotent, dedup) and mentions compression and TTL. However, it omits side effects like size limits, overwrite behavior, or auth requirements.

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 with no fluff, but it lacks structure and omits critical details. While efficient, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and moderate sibling tools, the description is severely underspecified. It does not explain how to use parameters, constraints, or return values, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage. Parameters like pin, compress, redacted, sensitive are left undocumented.

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 verb (store), resource (artifact), and key characteristics (content-addressed, SHA-256, compression, TTL, returns artifact ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like artifact.get (read) and artifact.delete.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as file.contracts or artifact.put variants. Usage is implied (storing an artifact) but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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