Memory Set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the value persists across sessions, which implies persistent mutation, but does not disclose whether existing keys are overwritten or the exact side effects. Since annotations cover the mutation flag, the description adds modest context beyond them.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose. However, given the 0% parameter coverage, it leaves the namespace parameter unexplained and does not mention overwrite behavior. An agent could likely infer enough to call it, but the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 only references 'key-value pair' and does not explain the parameters, especially the optional 'namespace' field. The schema provides types and constraints, but the description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics.

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 'persist' and the resource 'key-value pair' stored in a specific location (.argus/memory/). It also mentions cross-session persistence, which distinguishes it from in-memory or ephemeral tools. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 context for when to use it ('track scores, decisions, or context between runs') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools like memory_get. It implies usage but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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