Memory Store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Store a specific memory entry' and mentions scope. It does not disclose important behaviors such as near-duplicate detection, conflict resolution (despite the schema having 'force' and 'resolution' fields), or any side effects. This leaves the agent unaware of key behaviors.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The most important information (verb and resource) is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: specifying the action and providing key usage guidance.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It only addresses two aspects (purpose and scope) while ignoring other critical parameters like 'kind', 'project', 'force', 'resolution', and 'handoff_doc'. The tool's complexity demands a more thorough description to ensure correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage context for the 'scope' parameter (team vs. personal visibility), which is also described in the schema but with slightly different wording. However, it does not add meaning for the other six parameters, which remain fully explained only in the schema. Thus, the description offers marginal additional value.

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: 'Store a specific memory entry.' It specifies the verb and resource. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling memory tools (e.g., memory_recall, memory_update), the phrase 'store' and 'learn something worth remembering' implicitly indicate it is for new entries, not retrieval or modification.

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 some usage guidance: 'Use scope="org" for team-wide visibility, "personal" for caller only' and 'Call this whenever you learn something worth remembering across sessions.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, such as when to use memory_update instead for overwriting an existing memory.

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