lifeos_add_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the physical write path, that category is metadata-only, that canonical files are protected from overwrite, frontmatter injection (source: agent + timestamp), and a pgvector indexing side effect. It does not say what error/return occurs if a canonical filename is attempted or whether any permissions are required.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, then a tight bulleted list of behavioral constraints, then args. The Args block partly restates names already implied by the schema, a minor redundancy, but every bullet 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description thoroughly covers write semantics for an unannotated mutation tool. The remaining gap is failure behavior for the protected canonical-file case and any auth prerequisites.

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 0% (bare titles only), so the description must compensate — and it does, documenting all three params with format constraints (kebab-case, .md suffix) and concrete examples for both filename and category.

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?

States a specific verb (Store) and resource (agent-generated memory entry) plus the exact destination path (vault/memory/). All five siblings are read-only retrieval tools, so this write tool is trivially distinguishable from them.

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?

'agent-generated memory entry' implies the caller context (an agent persisting its own findings), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance versus alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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