Store Memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully conveys durability ('durable facts', 'across sessions') but omits critical behavioral details: whether calls are idempotent, if storage is additive or overwriting, limits, or error conditions.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences containing zero waste. Front-loaded with the action ('Store durable facts') and immediately followed by timing guidance ('after drafting'). Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter tool without output schema. The description explains the cross-session persistence mechanism but, lacking annotations, should ideally disclose side effects, storage scope (per-user vs global), or relationship to the recall mechanism.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implies the parameters are used to extract facts for storage but does not explicitly map 'user_message' or 'assistant_response' to the extraction process or explain why both are required.

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 stores 'durable facts and preferences' using specific verbs (store, persist) and identifies the resource (user context). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'recall' by emphasizing the write operation ('Store') versus the implied read operation of the sibling.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Call after responding' and 'after drafting a response.' However, it lacks explicit reference to sibling 'recall' as the retrieval alternative, though this is implicitly clear from the contrasting action verbs.

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