add_memory_entry

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key side effects: it inserts into a database table and optionally writes a markdown file. However, it does not disclose required permissions, reversibility, or the role of the 'computer' parameter. The behavioral disclosure is basic but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief paragraph explaining the core behavior (DB insert and optionally file write), followed by a clear 'Args:' section. No word is wasted, and the format aids readability for an AI agent.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the main logic and parameters, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, file system effects persistence, and the relationship between parameters like 'computer' and the system. Given the tool's complexity (DB + file write), more completeness would be helpful, but it is minimally adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates with inline parameter explanations. Each parameter is described (e.g., 'topics: Comma-separated topic tags'), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default. The 'detail' and 'computer' could be further clarified, but overall the description provides good parameter context.

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 tool adds a memory entry to the memory palace, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the memory_entries table and optional markdown file creation under journal/{entry_type}s/, which is unique among the many sibling tools like add_glossary_term or add_journal_entry.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does and its parameters, but does not mention conditions for preferred use or exclude any sibling tools. The context of many similar add tools makes this omission significant.

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