insert_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It reveals auto-expiration (7 days or custom), but does not mention idempotency, side effects, size limits, or what happens on insertion (e.g., duplicate handling). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: purpose, use cases, default behavior, and alternative. Front-loaded with core action, no fluff. Ideal structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., success indication, memory ID). It does not. Also missing details on error conditions or how inserted memories can be accessed later. Functional but incomplete for a 7-parameter tool.

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 86%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., body used for semantic search, agent_body defaults to server profile). This is baseline useful but not enhancing beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: storing short-term demo memories with auto-expiration. It specifies the resource (demo.memories) and provides specific use cases (observations, decisions, session notes). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like memory_ingest for permanent storage.

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?

Explicitly advises to use for ephemeral context, and explicitly names memory_ingest as the alternative for permanent knowledge. It also explains default expiration and custom expires_at. Could compare more broadly with other siblings, but key guidance is strong.

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