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

The description says 'Store a new memory', which is clearly a write operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the annotations. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the conflicting statement.

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?

The description is a single short sentence and front-loaded with the core action. However, '5D spatial coordinates' is decorative jargon that is not supported by the schema and could confuse an agent, making the description slightly less effective than pure conciseness would allow.

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?

Although the schema and output schema cover the parameters well, the description lacks usage guidance and contains a significant annotation contradiction. An agent cannot reliably determine whether this is a safe read operation or a write operation, which is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 all seven parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and the mention of '5D spatial coordinates' does not map to any actual schema property, so it contributes little beyond the baseline.

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 action ('Store a new memory') and a resource ('holographic memory core'), clearly distinguishing it from the read/search/list siblings. The verb is unambiguous and the scope is evident.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory.search, memory.read, or memory.list. The description gives no context for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names alone.

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