add_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Store a new memory' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, whether there are rate limits, or how the memory is persisted. The examples help but don't cover operational behavior.

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 each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance with helpful examples. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the essential 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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about purpose and usage. However, it lacks important contextual information about what happens after storing (e.g., confirmation, memory ID returned), error conditions, or how this integrates with the broader memory system given the many sibling tools.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate for the 25% coverage gap (the 'tags' parameter has minimal schema documentation).

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 a new memory') and resource ('memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_memory' or 'delete_memory' by specifying 'new' creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'save_session' which might also store memories in a session context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('when something is worth remembering') with examples of what constitutes a memory (preference, fix, decision, procedure). This helps the agent understand appropriate contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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