Store Durable Memory

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

The description's behavioral claims ('does not delete existing memories', 'performs no network access') largely restate destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false from the annotations, and it adds the useful locality framing of 'local durable memory'. It does not disclose what the annotations cannot: whether repeated calls with identical content create duplicates (idempotentHint=false implies they do) or what the write returns. With annotations already carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but adds limited new context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage routing, then behavioral constraints. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers purpose, usage routing, and side-effect profile. The only gap is duplicate/return behavior on a non-idempotent write, which is minor.

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% with per-field descriptions and enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's list of knowledge kinds loosely maps to the type enum but adds no format, syntax, or selection guidance beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource (store durable project knowledge that survives across sessions) with the durable/temporary distinction made explicit against the checkpoint sibling. An agent can tell immediately what this tool produces and how it differs from checkpoint without opening either schema.

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?

States exactly when to use it (stable decisions, constraints, gotchas, failures, hypotheses, reusable knowledge) and names the alternative with its own condition (checkpoint for temporary task progress). Nothing is left to inference.

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