Add memory

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds context about long-term memory and default user scope. However, it misses a key behavioral trait: the `infer` parameter defaults to true, meaning the LLM may extract or transform the input before storing. This is not disclosed in the description and is important for anticipating that stored content may differ from raw input.

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 concise: two sentences total for tool description, front-loaded with the core action and then usage details. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the core purpose, input format (text vs messages), and scoping defaults. Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is not mentioning the default `infer=true` behavior, but that is documented in the schema, so the description is not severely lacking. Overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds minimal new information beyond reinforcing the text/messages choice and scoping, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Store a fact, preference, or conversation in TeleMem long-term memory.' The verb 'store' and resource 'TeleMem long-term memory' are specific, and the tool's name matches its function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memory, search_memories, update_memory, and delete_memory by signaling an add operation.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Provide `text` for a single statement or `messages` for conversation turns' and notes scoping by user_id/agent_id/run_id with a default. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but for a write operation the context is straightforward. This falls short of 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' but gives clear context.

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