Store a memory

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it persists data across sessions and global memories personalize future projects. It does not cover overwrite semantics or error conditions, but for a simple memory store the provided context is adequate and goes beyond a minimal statement.

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 with exactly three sentences: the primary action, scope guidance, and a note on global effects. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant content or filler.

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 simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: persistence, scope selection, and global personalization. It does not explicitly mention the conditional 'projectId' requirement, but that is already defined in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 75%, so the description is not required to fully compensate, but it adds semantic value to the 'scope' parameter by giving real-world examples and clarifying the global vs. project distinction. The 'key' and 'value' parameters are already clear from the schema, and the description does not add further detail, which is acceptable given the coverage.

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 tool's action with 'Persist a fact for future sessions,' specifying the resource as a memory. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall', but the verb 'persist' and title 'Store a memory' make the purpose unambiguous. Therefore, it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 strong usage guidance by explaining when to use 'global' versus 'project' scope with concrete examples such as 'favorite styles, fonts, stacks, deploy targets.' It does not, however, mention alternatives like 'recall' or state when not to use this tool, which would fully elevate it to a 5.

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