memory_action_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses that each call creates a new action plus audit entry, that any requires edge creates the action as blocked, and how priority defaults and clamps. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or rate limits, but the core create semantics are well described.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose, required input, dependency behavior, priority rule, creation side effect, and alternatives are all stated without 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description still explains the return shape {success,action,edges}, dependency-state effects, priority handling, and when to use sibling tools. The remaining field-level details are covered by 100% schema description coverage.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: title is required, parentId and requires must name existing actions, requires is comma-separated, and priority defaults to five and is clamped 1-10.

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 states a specific verb and resource: persist a work item with optional dependency edges. It also names sibling tools for related actions, so an agent can distinguish create from update or routine execution without opening other schemas.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to memory_action_update for existing actions and memory_routine_run for stored workflows. It also states dependency and priority behavior that determines when this create tool behaves differently.

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