logicmem_memory_log

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

The description clearly states 'the agent's memory is permanent and searchable across sessions,' which discloses key behavioral traits beyond what annotations (none provided) convey. It does not discuss potential side effects, but for a non-destructive store operation this is sufficient. No contradiction with missing annotations.

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 consists of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. Every word serves a purpose: stating the verb, noting permanence, and providing a concrete usage hint. There is no redundant or superfluous text.

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 six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavioral trait (permanence) but omits details about return values, error conditions, or rate limits. While the schema is well-described, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of structured output documentation. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing agents to be specific about who, what, when, why, but this only applies to the 'text' field. Other parameters (tags, source, category, client_id, importance) are not elaborated beyond their schema descriptions. No significant additional meaning is provided.

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 begins with 'Store a new memory,' clearly stating the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like logicmem_memory_recall (retrieve) and logicmem_memory_stats (query statistics). There is no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 advises agents to 'include who, what, when, why,' which guides how to populate the text field. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives or explicitly state when to use it versus other storage tools like logicmem_a2a_write_shared. The guidance is present but lacks exclusions or context differentiation.

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