memory.episode.create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description implies it's a write operation (creating a record) but does not disclose whether it's idempotent, whether it can overwrite existing episodes, any authentication requirements, or side effects on other memory entities. The example shows a basic usage pattern but doesn't cover behavioral edge cases.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences: a definition, usage guidance with alternatives, and an example. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 8 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job clarifying the purpose and usage. However, without an output schema or return value description, an agent might not know what the tool returns after creation. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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. The description provides a concrete example (project='CORE', task_description='Migrei PLD', outcome='completed', lessons=['...']) that maps to schema parameters, but it does not explain all 8 parameters (e.g., tags, approach, occurrence_id, related_memory_ids). The example gives a good starting point but leaves some parameters undocumented.

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 explicitly states the tool registers an EPISÓDIO, defined as 'what was done in a specific task and the result'. It clearly distinguishes this from other memory tools like memory.upsert and memory.procedure.create by specifying the type of information captured (unique event vs. timeless knowledge vs. reusable procedure).

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use for' guidance, directly naming sibling tools memory.upsert and memory.procedure.create as alternatives. This gives an agent clear decision criteria for when to invoke this tool versus others.

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