add_memory_entry

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it inserts into the memory_entries table and optionally writes a markdown file, and describes the return value (confirmation or error). It lacks details on idempotency, concurrent access, or specific error conditions, but covers the main behavioral aspects adequately.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose statement, usage guidance, a brief internal description, then clearly labeled parameter explanations, and the return value. It is front-loaded with essential information and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 6 parameters (3 required), no schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive coverage. It explains all parameters, the underlying database operation, file creation, and the return type. No gaps are evident for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides clear, meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., summary: 'One-paragraph summary, stored in the DB and shown in search'). This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds value beyond parameter names.

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, specifies it's for human-curated notes with title, summary, and topics, and distinguishes it from store_episodic_memory and store_semantic_memory for machine logging or distilled concepts. The purpose is specific and well-differentiated from siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('human-curated memory palace note') and provides direct alternatives: store_episodic_memory for machine logging, store_semantic_memory for concepts. This gives clear context and helps the agent choose correctly.

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