Memory Summarize & Store

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It notes the action (store) and input (narrative). However, it fails to disclose what happens to existing memories, permission requirements, or return behavior. The resolution parameter in schema hints at conflict handling, but the description omits this behavioral detail.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded with critical information. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more helpful. It does not explain what the tool returns or handle edge cases. Given the complexity of memory storage, a brief comment on return value or idempotency would improve completeness. However, schema covers parameter details adequately.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by advising to pass 'a full narrative description' for session_summary, reinforcing the schema. No additional insight on other parameters like kind or scope is provided.

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: to distill a session summary into a memory entry and store it. The verb 'distill' and 'store' plus reference to 'session summary' uniquely identify this tool among siblings like memory_store and memory_recall.

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 clear guidance: 'Call at the end of meaningful sessions.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context of session summaries makes usage boundaries clear.

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