store_thought

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the thought is embedded and saved as a qnote, but it does not disclose potential side effects like vector index updates or failure modes. This adds some context beyond annotations but not deeply.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately states the action and mechanism, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple create tool with complete schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It could benefit from explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the combination of schema, annotations, and output schema fills most gaps.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented (text, tags, session_id). The tool description offers no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Store'), the resource ('a new thought'), and the mechanism ('embed and save to vault as a qnote'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_thoughts (search) and record_decision (decisions).

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 implies the tool is for capturing thoughts but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like 'record' or 'create_entities'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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