store_procedural_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool stores data but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing entries, is append-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The 'successful' qualifier hints at a condition but is vague. More behavioral details are needed.

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 with a clear header, conceptual explanation, and formatted Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It could be slightly improved by noting whether the procedure updates an existing pattern or always creates a new one, but overall it is sufficient for a basic store 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds meaningful explanations for each parameter: 'Short name...', 'Markdown-formatted steps', and 'What situation should trigger...'. This clarifies the purpose and formatting beyond the bare schema.

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 stores a successful workflow pattern in procedural memory, with a helpful explanation of procedural memory. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like store_episodic_memory or store_semantic_memory, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use this specific store.

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 explains when to use procedural memory ('repeatable processes, workflows that worked well, step-by-step patterns') providing context. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives, which would help the agent decide between this and other memory tools.

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