add_memory_lib_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires authentication, or has limits. The agent is left to infer that it simply adds an entry with no side effects, which is insufficient for a write operation.

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 short sentence, efficient and to the point. It is not verbose but also not overly structured. It earns its place by stating the purpose clearly, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after addition (e.g., success status, confirmation) and any error conditions. It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete information to handle the tool's response.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the parameter names. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description contributes no extra value.

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 'Add entry to memory library' clearly states the verb and resource, making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'add_term_lib_entry' beyond the resource name, missing a chance to clarify that this tool adds to a translation memory library rather than a term library.

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 such as 'add_term_lib_entry', nor does it mention any prerequisites, context, or constraints. The agent receives no help in deciding between similar tools.

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