add_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value (the new memory id) and constrains input to one concise durable fact, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, overwrite/duplicate behavior, or limits on how many memories can be stored.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the action and its scope first, then the deduplication guidance, then the return value.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, precondition, and return, which is nearly sufficient. Only the handling of duplicates and any storage limits remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'text' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by specifying the input should be 'one concise, durable fact worth remembering across sessions,' which constrains what to pass, but gives no format, length, or example guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (store) and resource (a durable fact/memory) with a clear qualifier about scope across sessions. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling search_memory and delete_memory without needing to name them.

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 instructs the agent to 'Search first to avoid duplicates,' which routes to the sibling search_memory and gives the precondition for calling add_memory. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., what to do on a near-duplicate), but the routing guidance is clear.

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