Memory Store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Store' (write operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits like duplicate detection, overwrite behavior, or auth requirements. The 'force' and 'resolution' parameters hint at near-duplicate handling, but the description does not explain this.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 7 parameters (many optional) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers core purpose and scope but lacks details on error handling, return values, or when to use sibling tools. Schema coverage compensates somewhat.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining scope values ('org', 'personal') and the use case, but does not elaborate on other parameters like 'kind', 'force', or 'resolution'.

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 verb 'Store' and resource 'memory entry', and gives examples of scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_update or memory_summarize_and_store, which could lead to confusion about when to use this tool versus others.

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 advises 'Call this whenever you learn something worth remembering across sessions' and explains the scope parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing memories or summarizing). No alternatives are mentioned.

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