memory_capture

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

The description reveals a key non-obvious behavior—auto-dedup at cosine similarity >= 0.95 with reinforcement—which is not present in the annotations. It also clarifies the verbatim nature of capture. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the minimal annotation set.

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 short, front-loaded sentences deliver purpose, a critical behavioral detail, and usage guidance. No fluff—every clause earns its place. Ideal length for an MCP tool description.

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 capture tool with a detailed schema and output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what to capture, automatic deduplication behavior, and recommended use cases. It does not explain return values (not needed given output schema) or edge cases like truncation, but the schema already covers those. Slightly more could be said about tier selection, but it's adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on `tier` or `cue`), but the 'verbatim' and dedup hints loosely relate to `text` and `cue`. No additional guidance beyond what structured fields already provide.

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+resource ('Capture a verbatim turn') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_recall and memory_search by focusing on recording rather than retrieving. The auto-dedup detail further differentiates it from a plain store operation.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('for corrections + load-bearing decisions'), providing clear context for adoption. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like memory_reinforce, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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