Mem0 Cloud

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: dedup ('Identical facts are stored once'), 365-day retention, security model (stored under the hash of memory_key, unrecoverable if lost), billing ($0.008/call, 3 free/day), and the return shape. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core store-and-extract behavior before secondary facts (retention, price, return shape). Nearly every clause earns its place, though the parentheticals about pricing and key secrecy make it read as a wall of text rather than cleanly chunked guidance.

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 12-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape, the entity-identity requirement, retention and cost, and the security contract. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening anything else.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the cross-parameter constraint 'needs at least one of user_id, agent_id, app_id, run_id' is not expressible in the required list, and it explains memory_key's secret/hashing semantics and the infer flag's effect. Minor loss only because excludes/includes/custom_instructions interplay is not elaborated.

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 precise verb+resource ('Store memories from a conversation') and immediately names the model-based extraction behavior plus the mem0 analog. It is clearly separable from siblings delete_memories, get_memories and search_memories, which are the retrieval/deletion counterparts of this write path.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: at least one of user_id/agent_id/app_id/run_id is needed, memory_key is required, and infer=false switches to verbatim storage. It does not explicitly say when to reach for this tool over search_memories or how to follow up after storing, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 404 when the memory is not yours, the 200-item cap with a signal that more remain, the destructive/auth requirement (secret memory_key generated by the caller), and cost/rate limits ($0.002 per call, 3 free calls a day). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive operation.

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?

One dense but front-loaded block: the core purpose leads, then the two modes, then auth and pricing. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the trailing pricing sentence is secondary detail that could be moved or trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by telling the agent the tool reports whether more memories remain. Combined with mode semantics, auth requirements, caps, and cost, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that memory_id is the single-target path, that the entity params form an at-least-one group for bulk mode, and that memory_key is caller-generated and unrecoverable. That exceeds the structured field text.

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 (delete) and resource (stored memories), then splits the behavior into two clearly distinguished modes: single-memory deletion by memory_id versus bulk deletion by entity. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use branching: pass memory_id for one memory, omit it and supply at least one of user_id/agent_id/app_id/run_id for bulk. It also states the memory_key prerequisite and that other keys cannot delete. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (get_memories/search_memories) as alternatives, so it is clear context without full routing.

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

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

Goes well beyond any annotations by disclosing 404 semantics for foreign memory_id, pagination shape {count,next,previous,results}, newest-first ordering, wildcard '*' matching, and crucially the memory_key secrecy model ('a different key sees nothing', lose it and data is unreachable). Also surfaces pricing and free-tier limits.

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?

Front-loads the dual-mode behavior in the first sentence, then covers filters, key, and pricing. Dense but every clause carries operational meaning; slightly busy with pricing and secret-key caveats that could be compressed.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it documents return shape, error behavior, ordering, auth model, and payment. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'at least one filter' constraint and '*' wildcard behavior, which is useful but largely compensates for coverage that's already present.

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 (read/returns memories) and resource, and clearly distinguishes two modes (single memory by id vs paginated list). It also contrasts with siblings like search_memories by noting exact-id vs filter listing.

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?

Explains when memory_id alone fetches one item vs when a filter (user_id/agent_id/app_id/run_id) is needed, and at least one filter is required for listing. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over search_memories, but the filtering and pagination context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the embedding mechanism, the 0-1 relevance score range, the memory_key isolation guarantee, filter constraints, a pricing/free-tier note, and the return shape. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs for a paid, isolation-scoped search.

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?

Four compact sentences front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then constraints, then price. Dense but every clause carries weight; the mem0 framing verges on filler.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully sketches the return shape and covers cost, scoping, and filter rules. Minor gap: pagination/behavior on empty results is unstated, but for a 6-param tool this is close to complete.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces required memory_key and the filters constraint but adds no syntax or defaults beyond the schema.

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?

State a specific verb (search) and resource (stored memories via semantic similarity), and the analogy to mem0 plus 'by meaning' distinguishes it from the literal retrieval implied by siblings like get_memories.

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?

Clearly frames this as the semantic search path and names the memory_key scoping constraint and filters requirement, which implicitly routes the agent away from get_memories. It does not explicitly name when to prefer siblings, keeping it just below a 5.

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