tool_store_memory

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

No annotations provided, but the description comprehensively explains parameter behaviors, including defaults and recommendations (e.g., semantic_tags critical for retrieval). It lacks details on return value or side effects, but for a write tool this is acceptable.

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 detailed and well-structured with a parameter list, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 9 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers all inputs thoroughly and provides usage context. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure), but overall sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all 9 parameters, including valid enum values, defaults, and usage recommendations. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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: '存储一条新记忆到球状记忆空间' (store a new memory in spherical memory space). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., recall, decay) by being the only tool for storing new memories.

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 provides specific usage guidance: call when there is noteworthy information, batch at natural conversation pauses rather than sentence by sentence. This clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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