memory_personal_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals 'add or update' semantics and memory types, but it does not explain whether an existing memory is overwritten, merged, or versioned, what validation occurs, whether it is destructive, or what side effects result. This is minimal for a state-changing tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler, begins with the core operation, and packs the key distinguishing information into a compact list. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this definition is incomplete. It does not explain update behavior, field meanings, valid memory_type values beyond the list, or how the optional fields interact. The output schema covers return values, but the input usage context remains largely lacking.

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 the 13 undocumented parameters. It does add meaning for memory_type by listing the six allowed categories, but it leaves subject, key, value, scope, tags, details, sensitivity, confidence, validity windows, and numeric fields unexplained. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 clear action ('Add or update') and resource ('long-term personal assistant memory'), and it enumerates the allowed memory types. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like memory_add or memory_personal_derive, but the word 'personal' plus the memory-type list provides reasonable orientation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_add, memory_personal_derive, memory_personal_resolve, or memory_update. It also provides no exclusions or selection conditions, so an agent must infer when this specific tool is appropriate.

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