agentmem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'stores' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is idempotent, what permissions are needed, how conflicts with existing memories are handled, or what the response contains. The mention of 'memory categories' hints at structure but lacks operational details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters, 75% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior, error conditions, or return values that would be needed for robust agent operation.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'type' corresponds to categories like 'preference' or 'procedure', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context for the parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('memory'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on creation rather than deletion, listing, or updating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'save_session' or 'promote_memory' which might also involve storing information.

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 context on when to use ('when something is worth remembering') with examples of memory types (preference, fix, decision, procedure). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use or name alternatives like 'update_memory' for modifications, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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