store_memory

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint:true and destructiveHint:false; the description adds specific behavioral context: idempotence, returning existing memory if content exists, and the force parameter skipping near-duplicate checks. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Very concise: two sentences for purpose and idempotence, then bullet-point-style parameter explanations. No redundant text; every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters (3 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers idempotence, workspace semantics, and force flag. It lacks explanation of content and tags, but those are either clear from schema or handled by output schema. Overall mostly complete for a creation 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 43% (force, workspace, memory_type have schema descriptions). The description explicitly adds meaning for name, workspace, and force parameters, partially compensating for lacking schema descriptions for content, tags, and metadata. However, not all parameters are addressed.

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 'Save a new memory' and highlights idempotence, distinguishing it from siblings like update_memory and delete_memory by the idempotent behavior and return of existing memory if content matches.

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 explains the workspace and force parameters, and mentions idempotence, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recall_memory or search_by_tag. Usage context is implied but not fully differentiated.

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