Memorize Document or Fact

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

With readOnlyHint=false, the annotation already signals a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: states ingestion is additive and non-destructive, mentions 'zero context window decay', and clarifies topological memory nodes. It doesn't detail failure modes or side effects beyond that, but the additive/non-destructive note is strong supplementary transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: what it stores, and when to use/avoid with alternatives. No redundancy, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool has 4 parameters (1 required), 100% schema coverage, no enums, and an output schema exists. The description covers purpose, ingestion behavior, non-destructive semantics, and usage boundaries. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation or memory ID), but the output schema presumably covers that, and the complexity is moderate.

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 100% and each parameter has a meaningful description. The tool description adds context on the purpose of 'family' (deterministic verbatim register quoting) and 'filename' (provenance tag), but these details are already partly in the schema. The description does not add significant new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stores... into long-term persistent memory') and clearly identifies the resources (text, documents, code snippets, conversational facts). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that this is for ingestion, not querying, and references icx_recall_scoped and icx_search_facts as alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('whenever you need to save facts, contracts, documentation, or user details') and when not to use ('Do not use for querying existing memory'), naming the alternative tools. This is a model example of usage direction.

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