store_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose that memories are durable and survive future windows. However, it does not mention write semantics, return value, deduplication, overwrite behavior, or any operational effects beyond persistence.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a usage exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, but the description lacks behavioral completion such as return values, error conditions, or how stored memories are later surfaced. For a 13-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, it gives adequate selection guidance but not full operational context.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about durable memory but provides no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 stores durable memory for stable preferences, identity facts, project entities, reusable patterns, or solved cases, and explicitly contrasts it with transient task state. It is specific about the kind of content and the resource being written, and the exclusion distinguishes it from transient-state tools.

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 explicit conditions for use ('when the user shares a stable preference...') and a clear when-not ('Do not use this for transient task state'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like store_case or store_workflow_pattern as alternatives, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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