memory_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses persistence and searchability, which are important behavioral traits, but it does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether fields are merged or replaced) or any side effects. This is a noticeable gap for a write tool.

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 concise (four sentences, ~35 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, update behavior, persistence/searchability, and content best practices. No filler or repetition.

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 store/upsert tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to update, persistence, and searchability. It lacks details on return values or edge cases like TTL or namespace handling, but those are documented in the schema. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 six parameters. The description adds content-writing guidance ('specific, front-loads key information, one concept per entry') that complements the schema but does not substantially enhance understanding of parameter semantics beyond it.

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?

Uses a specific verb pair 'create or update' with resource 'a memory', and the tool's name clearly indicates the write operation. It contrasts with siblings (search, recall, delete, list) by being the only write tool, and the description reinforces this.

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 gives clear context that memories are persistent and searchable, implying this tool is for storing information. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like memory_search or memory_delete, nor does it state when not to use it. Still, the purpose is unambiguous and the content guidance is useful for effective use.

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