memory.store

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the service never sees plaintext, stores content as an opaque blob, and tags as plaintext. This covers the key behavioral trait of encryption and searchability.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds valuable context without redundancy.

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 5 parameters (all described) and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: encryption requirement, tag semantics, and parameter roles. It lacks return value details but that's acceptable.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by reinforcing the encryption workflow and tag purpose, and providing context for importance and memory_type.

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 name 'memory.store' and opening sentence 'Store a memory.' clearly state the action. It distinguishes from siblings like memory.recall and memory.search by focusing on storage and adding context about encryption and tags.

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 explicitly instructs to encrypt content client-side and clarifies that tags are plaintext for searchability. It provides a use-case analogy (email subject lines) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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