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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the text is embedded locally and can later be found by meaning rather than exact words, which adds real behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not cover failure modes, overwrite behavior, or permissions, but for a simple store operation the key behavior—persistence and semantic retrieval—is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and efficient: it opens with the core purpose, then provides selection guidance, and closes with a notable behavioral detail about embedding. No sentence is wasted, and the structure is well front-loaded for an agent scanning the definition.

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?

For a tool with only three parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what to store, what not to store, and how storage works. It does not mention sibling alternatives explicitly, but the guidance is strong enough that an agent can invoke store_memory correctly without additional context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds general guidance about what content is appropriate ('durable facts... not transient chatter') but does not provide parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 names a specific action ('Save something worth remembering across sessions') and identifies the resource ('memory') with clear scoping: durable facts, decisions, preferences, and project context. It distinguishes itself from retrieval or management siblings by focusing on the act of persisting new information, and the 'not transient chatter' qualifier sharpens the boundary.

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 gives clear usage criteria: store durable facts, decisions, preferences, and project context, and avoid transient chatter. It implies this tool is for creation/persistence rather than retrieval or modification, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like search_memory or update_memory, so it stops short of full when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance.

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