memory.upsert

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions idempotence and the 'admission' logic (create vs refine). However, it does not disclose details like overwrite vs merge behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is good but not exhaustive.

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 purpose, but it mixes Portuguese and English, which may confuse an agent expecting consistent language. The structure is logical (purpose, usage, example) but could be more streamlined and monolingual.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks return value description, full parameter details, and potential side effects. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for an agent to operate reliably.

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. It only partially covers parameters (project, category, title, summary via example) and omits explanation of domain, details, weight_manual, and any constraints or allowed values. The example helps but is insufficient for 7 parameters.

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 it creates/updates canonical memory idempotently and positions it as the standard save method. It distinguishes from many sibling tools by naming specific tools not to use (memory.pr.create, memory.procedure.create, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use for' sections list concrete scenarios and alternative tools. It advises calling memory.find_duplicates beforehand to avoid duplicates, providing actionable guidance. This is exceptional context for an agent to choose correctly.

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