memory_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behaviors: 'durable' persistence, 'RAG-recallable later', and 'build a graph you can walk' – indicating long-term storage and recall implications. It also notes the default scope. Lacks details on idempotency or return value, but core behavior is well-covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately actionable usage. Every sentence contributes value – scope explanation and graph-building tip – with zero redundancy.

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 a write tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, scope options, graph-building usage, and use cases. Minor gaps around duplicate-id behavior and return responses exist, but they don't hinder selection or 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 coverage is high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of id and links for graph building ('Pass a stable id and links to build a graph you can walk') and ties type values to use cases (decisions, facts, gotchas). This enhances understanding of parameter relationships.

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?

Clearly states 'Save a durable memory to the graph (RAG-recallable later)' – a specific verb (save), resource (durable memory to graph), and benefit (later recall). Lists explicit use cases (decisions, facts, gotchas) and distinguishes itself from sibling read/deletion tools like memory_recall and memory_forget.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use for decisions, facts, gotchas, and links between them.' Explains scope values (project/global/custom) and recommends passing id and links for graph construction. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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