store_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool stores information for future use, implying persistence, but fails to describe key behavioral traits such as how memories are stored (e.g., durability, access controls), potential limitations (e.g., storage capacity, rate limits), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by explaining what the tool does and its intended use, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines into a distinct part.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like how memories are stored, any prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or what the tool returns. With no output schema to explain return values, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters ('content', 'tags', 'metadata') with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid content or metadata usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('memory or piece of knowledge'), and provides examples of what can be stored ('important information, facts, preferences, or context'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'clear_memories' or 'delete_memory', which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this to remember important information... for future conversations,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to use 'search_memories' instead for retrieval.

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