zerodb_store_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a write operation (implied by 'store'), potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or how it handles auto-generated IDs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies persistent storage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a storage tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, return values, and how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'content' and 'role' are core inputs. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 action ('Store') and resource ('agent memory in ZeroDB') with the purpose of 'persistent context'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zerodb_get_context' (retrieval) and 'zerodb_store_vector' (vector storage), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'zerodb_search_memory' which might overlap in purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zerodb_search_memory' or 'zerodb_store_vector'. The description implies usage for storing memory content, but lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons with siblings.

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