Capture a memory

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

The annotation already provides idempotency, and the description adds behavioral context by noting 'takes effect immediately, enters recall' and emphasizing content preservation (e.g., never drop negations). This goes beyond the annotation to inform the agent of expected side effects and storage behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary details and focuses on essential usage and content requirements, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, enums, output schema), the description provides sufficient context on when to call and what to store. It does not repeat parameter details already covered by the schema, and the output schema exists, so no further explanation is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all four parameters (type, scope, content, priority). The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (store a long-term memory) and the resource (memory), and explicitly distinguishes when to call it from other memory tools by specifying user statements like '以后X' or '我喜欢X'. This makes it unambiguous for an agent to know its primary purpose.

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 explicit 'when' conditions (call immediately on explicit preferences/facts/decisions/corrections) and adds a practical tip (don't wait for wrap-up). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the strong conditional guidance effectively directs usage.

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