Store Memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses auto-indexing, type classification prefixes, default visibility, visibility requirements (personal/team require joined coordination identity), longTerm not injected until operator review, and the read-only guard. This adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose. The type list is long but valuable. No fluff; every sentence adds functional information. Slightly long due to the type enumeration, but well-structured for the complexity.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential operational context (type, visibility, longTerm, read-only) while the schema descriptions cover remaining parameters. It does not mention upsert behavior of topicKey or attachment constraints, but these are in schema. Overall, sufficiently complete for safe 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema for key parameters: explains the type enum with bracketed prefixes and meanings (e.g., gotcha = critical pitfall), clarifies visibility defaults and requirements, and details longTerm semantics. This meaningfully enriches 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's function: 'Store a new observation/memory. Automatically indexed for search.' This gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool memorix_store_reasoning, which may be a related but distinct store operation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'For a read-only task, do not store unless the user explicitly asks to save a record.' Also gives conditions for longTerm: 'Set longTerm only when the caller explicitly wants an additional source-backed long-term candidate.' This is strong usage guidance.

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