store_put

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral context: collection auto-creation, overwrite on re-put, auto-generated IDs, deviation thresholds with resulting actions, return shape, and manifest scope. This exceeds the annotation baseline and is consistent with them.

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 front-loads the core action and then packs essential behavioral details into a compact, well-structured paragraph. Every clause adds necessary information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides the return shape, side effects, parameter semantics, and scope restrictions. An agent has everything needed to invoke store_put correctly, including edge behavior around overwriting and deviation thresholds.

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 must compensate, and it does for the most nuanced parameters: record_id (pin vs auto-generate) and deviation (with exact thresholds and meanings). app_id and record are less detailed, but their purpose is reasonably inferable from names and schema titles.

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 action ('Write a JSON record') and resource ('named SOIL collection'), and the 'created on first write' detail clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/update/delete tools. The write semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to write records, pass record_id to overwrite, omit to auto-generate. It does not explicitly name store_update as an alternative, but the write-oriented semantics and overwrite rule make the correct selection obvious.

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