memory_add

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait, automatic conflict detection, but does not explain what happens on conflict: rejection, merge, overwrite, or error. For a mutating tool, the side effects and outcome remain unclear.

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 one tight sentence with no filler: 'Manually add a memory' is front-loaded and 'Performs automatic conflict detection' adds a distinct behavioral point. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description leaves key operational unknowns: conflict resolution behavior, return/error format, and relationship to memory_replace/memory_consolidate. The schema covers parameters well but not runtime behavior.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter detail. Key format, value length constraint, tier meaning, importance scale, and attribute categories are all documented in the input 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Manually add a memory.' It also mentions a distinguishing behavior, automatic conflict detection. Among siblings like memory_search, memory_replace, and memory_consolidate, the add intent is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with updating/consolidating existing 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Manually' hints that there may be an automated memory-adding path, but it never says when to choose memory_add over memory_replace or memory_consolidate, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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