memory_append

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that tags is optional and reveal nothing about permissions, whether appends are durable/atomic, the record format, or error behavior for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and target front-loaded, and the optional-parameter note placed after. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the low schema coverage.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate: it omits the meaning of the required text field, behavioral details, and any operational caveats. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that tags is optional and a list of strings, but adds no meaning for the required 'text' parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb (追加/append) and the concrete target (JOURNAL.jsonl event record), which is more precise than a generic 'memory' tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with memory_read/update/search, but the append semantics are clear enough to distinguish from reading and searching siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use memory_append versus memory_update or memory_read, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is for creating new events rather than modifying existing ones.

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