memory_record

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does meaningfully disclose behavior: all four fields are required and validated, and a vague entry has a future cost ('it costs context on every future lookup'). It does not describe persistence details like the shared/local store distinction, but that is already covered in the schema, so the description adds useful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences each earn their place: purpose, when to call, and quality/validation guidance. Information is front-loaded with the core action first.

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 record/write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, validation, and quality expectations. The sibling memory_get implies the retrieval path, but the description could have directly noted that the stored entry is later read via memory_get to tie the workflow together.

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 adds qualitative guidance beyond the schema by warning that 'a vague entry is worse than none,' which affects how an agent should fill failure, recovery, and pattern. This is meaningful extra parameter semantics.

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 identifies the action ('Record'), the object ('a failure and the recovery that worked'), and the intended outcome ('so a later session can skip the dead end'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like memory_get and memory_import_legacy because it is the write/record path.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call it after any user-assisted recovery or non-obvious workaround.' This tells an agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast it with memory_get or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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