store_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which covers the write nature and retry safety. The description adds 'trust scoring' as a behavioral hint but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or how trust scoring works. No contradiction with annotations exists, so a baseline score with some added value is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and object. However, it is under-specified for the tool's apparent complexity, which slightly detracts from effectiveness but does not hurt conciseness.

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?

Despite rich schema descriptions and an output schema, the tool description is too sparse given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, trust scoring, force_intent override) and the crowded sibling set. It omits any contextual framing around when to use it, how it relates to save_memory/save_to_synapse, or what trust scoring entails, leaving the agent without enough high-level guidance.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description only vaguely references 'metadata' which could correspond to tags or other fields, adding no concrete semantic detail beyond the schema. Thus baseline 3 applies.

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 'Store structured memory with metadata and trust scoring' clearly identifies the action (store) and the resource (structured memory), and adds distinctive features (metadata, trust scoring). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like save_memory or save_to_synapse, though the qualifiers 'structured' and 'trust scoring' offer some distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_memory, recall_memory, or save_to_synapse. It lacks any mention of context, exclusions, or recommended conditions, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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