memory_store

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

No annotations so description carries full burden. It reveals duplicate rejection behavior and force flag. Does not disclose side effects like overwriting, but as a create operation it's non-destructive. Sufficient for understanding.

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?

Description is informative without excess. First sentence states core purpose. Follow-up sentences add essential details. Could be slightly tighter but no wasted words.

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 9 sibling tools and absence of output schema, description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral quirks (duplicates). Return value not described, but acceptable without output schema. Complete for decision-making.

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%, but description fully explains each parameter: title (max 150 chars, descriptive), content (max 1500 chars, split ideas), source (manual default with three options implied), force (skip duplicate check). Adds meaning beyond schema names.

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 new memory' and specifies context: learn something worth remembering across sessions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_read, memory_update, etc., by focusing on creation.

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 says when to call: novel insights, decisions, etc. Provides constraints on title and content length, source options, and duplicate handling. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but siblings cover alternatives.

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