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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — persistence and versioning — but omits the most important one for a write tool: whether storing an existing key overwrites, appends a version, or errors. Value size limits and any auth requirements are also unstated.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the storage target, with the versioning caveat in parentheses. No 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?

For a 3-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does but not what happens on collision with an existing key. That gap is exactly the kind of thing the missing annotations would otherwise have carried.

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 key charset, the open-ended value, and the api_key fallbacks are all already documented structurally. The description adds nothing beyond 'key' and 'JSON value', which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Store any JSON value under a key') and a scope ('in your persistent home'), which is enough to place it against siblings like get_memory and delete_memory. It stops short of naming those siblings or making the read/write split explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. An agent reading this cannot tell why it would choose put_memory over the nearby add_note or house_put tools, or when get_memory is the right counterpart.

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