Add memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the distillation and reconciliation lifecycle, which adds some behavioral insight, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or idempotency behavior. More explicit transparency would improve confidence for an agent.

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 waste. The first sentence concisely states purpose and examples; the second adds valuable lifecycle context. Every phrase serves a purpose.

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 tool has only 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for typical use. It covers purpose, examples, and processing lifecycle. However, missing return value information and error behavior slightly reduce completeness.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by contextualizing the 'content' parameter (e.g., task outcome, decision), which goes beyond the schema's basic text description. This helps the agent choose appropriate content to store.

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 writes a memory back to the user's store with specific examples (task outcome, decision, user statement). It is distinct from sibling tools (recall_search, recall_timeline, get_profile) which are all read-oriented.

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 implies this is the tool for writing memories, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The lifecycle hint ('distillation + reconciliation') provides context but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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