memory_append

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

The description discloses that the operation appends to the body and preserves the id. Annotations show no readOnly or destructive hints, but the description adds value by stating the id is kept. It does not cover what happens if the memory does not exist or potential limits, but is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 simple append tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could mention error behavior (e.g., if memory doesn't exist) and provide more guidance against similar tools like notes_append, given the large sibling list.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already thoroughly describes each parameter. The description only repeats 'markdown' from the body parameter description, adding no new semantic information 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?

The description clearly states the tool appends markdown to an existing memory's body, identifies that the memory keeps its id, and distinguishes it from memory_write for creation. This is specific and differentiates from siblings.

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?

The description explicitly tells when not to use (for creation, use memory_write) and implies that this tool is for existing memories. However, it does not contrast with notes_append or other append-like tools, but the memory vs notes domain is clear enough.

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