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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context: the 50-memory cap and the demand for concise 1-2 sentence content. It does not explain what happens when the cap is reached, but the key constraint is disclosed.

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 short sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each additional phrase ('1-2 sentences', 'Max 50 memories') earns its place.

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 two-parameter write operation with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, content format, and a cardinality limit. The only missing detail is the behavior at the 50-memory cap, which is minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so content and category are already documented. The description adds a minor reinforcement by echoing the '1-2 sentences' rule, but it does not materially extend the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states an explicit verb ('Add') and resource ('user's AI memory'), and clarifies scope ('personal fact'). It directly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_bookmark or create_note, so an agent can identify it without inspecting other definitions.

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 purpose is stated clearly enough that the intended use case is obvious: store a personal fact in AI memory. There are no competing 'add memory' siblings, so exclusions aren't necessary; however, no explicit conditions or alternatives are discussed.

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