store_procedural_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing procedures), required permissions, or limitations. Only the purpose is described, leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral traits.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose, a brief conceptual note, and parameter descriptions. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the conceptual note on procedural memory is slightly redundant but helpful for context.

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 three parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meanings adequately. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. For a simple store tool, the description is complete enough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: procedure_name with an example, steps as Markdown-formatted, and trigger_context as the triggering situation. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it could provide more format details for trigger_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 verb 'store' and the resource 'procedural memory', and explains that it captures 'how to do things' — repeatable processes. This distinguishes it from other memory types (episodic, semantic) even without explicit sibling differentiation, making the purpose very clear.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like store_episodic_memory or store_semantic_memory. It lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or any prerequisites, which is a significant gap.

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