semantic_memorize

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether storing overwrites existing entries, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the return value indicates. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. It is not padded with unnecessary words, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 absence of annotations, an output schema, and a sparse parameter description, this tool definition is incomplete. An agent lacks information about return behavior, idempotency, and how to properly fill the category parameter, making it hard to use correctly without additional assumptions.

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?

The schema covers key and content with descriptions, but category has an empty description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the stored fact or how they should be formatted. With 67% schema coverage, the description does little to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 the action ('Store') and the resource ('semantic user fact, preference, or architectural decision into memory'), giving a specific verb and object. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'semantic_recall' by being the write operation, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, with no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparison to semantic_recall or other siblings. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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