memory_store

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Reveals write-through behavior and durability, but lacks details on idempotency, concurrency, or what happens on duplicate content. Additional behavior like error states or consistency is not addressed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines, followed by structured taxonomy and optional parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficient paragraph breaks enhance readability.

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?

Output schema exists (assumed adequate), so description does not need to detail return values. Covers required parameters and category taxonomy comprehensively. Optional parameters are briefly noted, which suffices for a single-fact tool. Minor gap: does not mention error handling or response format.

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%, making description the primary source. The category parameter is extensively documented with a built-in taxonomy. Other parameters (content, project, tags, source) receive only brief mentions ('the fact', 'optional slug', 'optional keywords', 'optional origin note'), lacking examples or constraints.

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 persists a single durable fact to long-term memory (write-through). It specifies 'ONE' and 'atomic fact', distinguishing it from batch operations like memory_ingest. The taxonomy for category is detailed, making resource and action clear.

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 when-to-use: 'the moment a fact worth surviving compaction appears' and 'do NOT wait for conversation summary.' Implicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing single facts, though not naming alternatives like memory_ingest for bulk.

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