add_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it 'stores' (a write operation) and persists 'across sessions', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It adds some context (persistence scope) but misses behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidelines, args, and returns in a structured format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, efficiently covering key aspects in minimal text.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (returns confirmation with ID), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, params, and returns, but lacks behavioral details like error cases or persistence guarantees, which are important for a write tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'content' as 'information to remember' and 'memory_type' with optional values (fact, preference, etc.), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples for 'content'.

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 verb 'store' and resource 'information in memory', specifying it's for persisting facts, preferences, events, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_memories' (deletion) or 'get_memory' (retrieval) by focusing on creation/persistence.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use ('to remember facts, preferences, events... across sessions'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like 'update_memory' if such a tool existed. It implies usage for persistence needs.

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