CPersona

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

Annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructive write semantics. Description adds persistence context ('in agent memory') and intent ('future recall') but omits behavioral details like overwrite rules, storage limits, or latency characteristics.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence of nine words with zero redundancy. Main verb leads immediately, and every word serves a specific purpose in defining the operation and intent.

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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter storage tool given 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations. Description establishes the core operation clearly, though it could explicitly reference the idempotent nature or 'recall' pairing for perfect completeness.

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% with detailed field descriptions (e.g., channel examples, ClotoMessage structure). Description aligns with schema but doesn't add semantic guidance beyond the schema's existing documentation.

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?

Clear verb 'Store' with specific resource 'message' and scope 'in agent memory'. The phrase 'for future recall' hints at the tool's relationship to the 'recall' sibling, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bulk alternatives like 'import_memories'.

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?

Implies usage context ('for future recall') suggesting when to persist data, but lacks explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like 'import_memories' for bulk operations versus single message storage.

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