atlas_memory_bank

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists capabilities like tagging and semantic search but does not disclose operational traits such as the destructive nature of the 'clear' action, overwrite behavior, or persistence guarantees. The agent has no warning about irreversible effects.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy 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?

Despite having 5 actions and 8 parameters, the description only touches on store/retrieve and a few features. It fails to mention the 'list' and 'clear' actions, what return values look like (no output schema), or the implications of clearing memory. The agent is left without critical context for safely using all actions.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explicitly calling out 'tagging, importance scoring, and semantic search,' which maps to the tags, importance, and query parameters, thus reinforcing their meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Long-term memory storage across sessions' and 'Store and retrieve important context, decisions, patterns, and learnings.' It communicates the core function and distinguishes it as a persistent memory tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like atlas_semantic_search.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The phrase 'across sessions' implies a use case, but the description does not tell the agent when to prefer this over atlas_context or atlas_semantic_search, nor when to avoid it.

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