Run a memory batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does add meaningful execution details: 'Items are validated before writes; operational failures are returned per item and are not a transaction.' This clearly communicates the non-atomic, per-item failure behavior. It stops short of describing return shapes, permissions, or size limits, but the core execution semantics are transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds non-obvious behavioral constraints. Every clause earns its place.

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 is adequate for selecting and using the tool at a high level: it names operations, validation, and non-transactional behavior. However, no output schema exists, and the description does not clarify the item structure for store/update, the meaning of 'bounded,' or the success response shape, so an agent is left with some uncertainty after invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description; the description adds little that is not already expressed by 'Delete/export ids' and 'Store or update items.' It does reinforce the operation-to-parameter mapping, but this is modest value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Run') and an explicit resource ('a bounded store, update, delete, or selected export batch'), with the four operation modes enumerated. It clearly differentiates itself from the single-operation sibling tools by being the batch variant.

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 word 'batch' and the operation list imply usage for grouped memory operations, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over memory_store, memory_update, memory_delete, etc. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing statements; usage is mostly inferred rather than stated.

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