Store several memories

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: whole-batch validation before storage, rejection by index, opinion conflict behavior, per-fact expiry rationale, and one result per fact in order. These details are important for a batch write tool whose annotations only say it is not read-only and not destructive.

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 long but justified because the schema provides no field descriptions for a complex nested facts array. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then structured as a field list and followed by default and return behavior.

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 batch mutation behavior, complex nested facts parameter, zero schema description coverage, and only basic annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It even explains return ordering despite an output schema existing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of parameter meaning. It documents the nested fields inside facts and explains how call-level source, namespace, and discovered act as defaults while expires is intentionally per-fact only.

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: saving several separate facts, each as its own memory. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling memory_store by explicitly saying multiple facts should not be compressed into a single record.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: whenever a conversation, search, or piece of work produced more than one thing worth remembering. It also names the alternative behavior by saying not to compress multiple facts into a single memory_store record.

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