store_thought

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns the created identifier and key fields, which is useful but partially redundant with the output schema. It says nothing about the non-idempotent consequence of repeat calls or what deduplicate actually changes — arguably the most behaviorally significant aspect of a create 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?

Two sentences, no filler, required inputs front-loaded before optional ones and the return value last. Nothing to trim.

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?

The output schema and annotations relieve some burden, but a create tool with eight parameters and zero schema-coverage documentation should explain deduplicate and thought_id, which materially change what gets written. As-is an agent could call this correctly for the simple path but would be guessing on the advanced path.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It names six of eight parameters, but the only real semantic addition is "essence (short canonical text)"; it omits thought_id and deduplicate entirely, and gives no meaning for priority ordering, confidence range, or thought_type values beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new thought node") and enumerates the primary inputs, so an agent knows this is the write path for thoughts versus get_thought/update_thought. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the create-vs-update distinction is inferable from the verb.

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 versus update_thought or link_thoughts, no prerequisites, no mention of when to prefer deduplicate over manual checking. "Optionally set" only describes parameter optionality, not usage conditions.

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