dakera_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the importance default and decay behavior, and notes that tags are optional. It does not specify return values or error handling, but the core write semantics and importance decay are transparent enough.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids unnecessary detail and keeps the most relevant usage guidance immediately visible.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use the tool, especially with the importance/decay explanation. It does not elaborate on every parameter, but the schema already covers those details, so the description fills the key contextual gaps.

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 high (86%), and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the importance default (0.5) and the threshold for critical memories (0.8–1.0) that survive decay. It also clarifies that tags are optional, augmenting the parameter details.

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 purpose with the verb 'persist' and the resource 'memory for an agent', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dakera_search and dakera_forget by focusing on the write 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 says 'Use to save facts, decisions, or context for future retrieval', providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tool names make the contrast obvious, so the guidance is adequate.

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