memory_decision_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a side effect beyond a simple record: the decision is 'mirror[ed] into facts with strong metadata.' However, it does not disclose reversibility, idempotency, failure modes, or what the mirroring actually entails, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the main verb and resource up front. It is efficient and readable, though 'with strong metadata' is vaguely worded and adds little actionable guidance.

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?

Despite an output schema and simple string parameters, the definition is thin for a tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage. It omits usage routing vs. sibling tools, parameter-level guidance, and the implications of the mirroring side effect, leaving an agent to guess at several operational details.

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 for undocumented parameters, but it does not. It never explains what title, context, decision, or rationale should contain or how they relate to the 'mirror into facts' behavior. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics beyond them.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('an architecture or technical decision'), making the core purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like memory_add, memory_personal_add, and memory_task_set by restricting content to decisions, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 clear context about content type ('architecture or technical decision'), which implies when to use the tool, but it does not state exclusions or point to alternative tools (e.g., memory_add for general facts, memory_personal_add for personal info). Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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