Add Long-Term Memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new persistent memory node', implying a write operation, but doesn't address permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or what 'persistent' entails (e.g., storage duration, retrieval guarantees). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new persistent memory node') and adds a useful detail ('with optional associations'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error conditions) to be fully complete for an AI agent.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional associations', which is already implied by the schema's optional 'associations' field. No additional semantic context is provided beyond what the schema documents.

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 ('Create') and resource ('persistent memory node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'addShortTermMemory' and 'addThought' by specifying 'persistent' and 'memory node'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'saveMemory' or 'updateLongTermMemory', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'addShortTermMemory', 'saveMemory', or 'updateLongTermMemory'. It mentions 'optional associations' but doesn't explain when associations are appropriate or when other tools might be better suited.

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