company_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool persists into memory, which indicates a stateful write, but it does not explain whether entries are appended, overwritten, merged, or deduplicated, nor what side effects occur. The vague 'JSON.' fragment adds no behavioral clarity.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, which is good. However, the standalone 'JSON.' sentence is cryptic and does not earn its place, and the description sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is concise but not well-structured enough to be considered highly effective.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and zero annotation coverage. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance relative to siblings, and behavioral details about how memory is updated. An agent would struggle to confidently construct a correct invocation from this description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not clearly map its concepts to the parameters. Required parameters like project_id and bundle_json are never explained, and the optional now and lesson fields are not mentioned at all. The word 'JSON.' weakly hints at bundle_json, but it is not enough to make the parameters actionable.

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 states a specific action ('Learn from the company's closed periods and graded workers') and a clear target resource ('its persisted operating memory'). It is more informative than a tautology and conveys that this tool is a memory-writing operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from memory-related siblings like memory_store or memory_query, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the appropriate context: use this tool after a company's periods close and workers are graded, to feed lessons into persisted memory. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_store or memory_recall, nor does it give any exclusions. This is helpful but only implicit guidance.

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