memory_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'store' without disclosing whether saving overwrites existing keys, how conflicts are handled, or what the return behavior is. The mention of the .txamcp_memory file adds location context but not enough behavioral transparency for a write operation.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with only two params, both well-documented in the schema. However, the lack of annotations and any behavioral detail (e.g., upsert semantics, return value) leaves the description minimally adequate but not comprehensive. Given the simple nature, a 3 is fair.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('Identifier key' and 'Content to remember'), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Store') and the resource ('important knowledge/decisions in project memory'), and specifies the local file (.txamcp_memory), which differentiates it from the sibling cloud_memory_save. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 implies usage for project-local memory but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference the cloud_memory_save sibling. The context is clear but non-exclusive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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