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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a write side effect ('Store'), conditional mode behavior, and a non-obvious conflict outcome ('If the response contains conflicts[]...'). It could add more about idempotency/upsert semantics or permission requirements, but the conflict-resolution behavior is meaningful context beyond 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?

Four dense sentences, with the most important 'Store' statement first, then a mode-by-mode breakdown, and finally the conflict-handling caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 14 parameters, nested objects, and no required parameters in the schema, the description covers the main mode combinations and the key conflict follow-up. It relies on the schema for tag/mask/metadata details and an output schema for the response shape, which is reasonable; slight gap is not explicitly stating that non-special type values still use single mode.

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 71%, so the schema documents most properties. The description adds value by mapping parameters to modes: content+namespace for single, type=decision with optional context, type=pattern requiring title+steps, and entries[] for bulk. This helps an agent assemble parameter sets correctly without inferring the mode structure from the flat 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store one or many memories in Memra.' It then enumerates the distinct modes (single, decision, pattern, bulk), which separates this creation tool from retrieval/maintenance siblings like memra_get, memra_list, and memra_supersede.

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?

It gives explicit mode-specific invocation rules ('Single mode: pass content + namespace', 'Pattern mode: pass type=pattern with title + steps + namespace', etc.) and names the alternative tool for conflicts: 'use memra_supersede on the outdated one instead of leaving both active.' This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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