Write (or update) a memory entry on this account: decisions, campaign outcomes, learnings. Use a short kebab-case name and a one-line description (that's the index line); details go in body. Your future sessions and Recao's weekly reports read this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Full content (markdown fine) | |
| name | Yes | Short kebab-case slug, e.g. 'campaign-tiktok-hooks-june' | |
| description | Yes | One-line summary for the index |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context: it writes/updates storing the entry, and that it persists across sessions and is read by weekly reports. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence earns its place, covering action, usage, and context.
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?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools that indicate a broader system, the description provides enough context: what to write, how to format, and where the data goes. Could mention whether updates are destructive (overwrite) but annotations cover idempotency.
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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining naming convention (kebab-case), that description is a one-line index, and that body supports markdown. This goes beyond schema field descriptions.
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 explicitly states the action (write/update) and resource (memory entry), and specifies categories (decisions, campaign outcomes, learnings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_index and memory_recall by mentioning that future sessions and weekly reports read this data.
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 guidance on parameter usage (kebab-case name, one-line description for index, details in body) and mentions the context where output is used (future sessions, weekly reports). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficient for typical use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The status checkers (assemble_status, clips_status) are differentiated by the job type they monitor. Memory tools (index, note, recall) are distinct operations. Competitor ad tools (search, get ads, get details) and video generation pipeline (avatar, clips, assembly) are well-separated.
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., assemble_video, get_competitor_ads, memory_index). No mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to understand.
With 17 tools, the server covers account management, memory, competitor research, and video generation without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for its functionality, neither too sparse nor too heavy.
The toolset covers the core workflows: account setup (sign_up, upgrade, whoami), memory (CRUD), competitor analysis (search, get ads, details), and video ad creation (avatar, clips, assembly). Minor gaps like lacking a delete memory tool are acceptable given the domain focus.
