Ajouter plusieurs mémoires

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it writes atomic facts and follows memory_add semantics, but does not explain whether the batch is atomic, how failures are handled, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently communicates the batch nature and the token-saving benefit without unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested array schema, no output schema), the description is too brief. It omits details about the shape of facts, validation, and return behavior, relying on memory_add as an external reference, which may not be available to the agent.

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 only 33% (only 'project' is described). The description does not explain the structure of the 'facts' array, the meaning of 'provenance', or any parameter-specific constraints, instead deferring to memory_add. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 writes multiple atomic facts in a single call ('Écrit plusieurs faits atomiques en un seul appel'), specifying the verb and resource. It also references memory_add to clarify semantics, distinguishing it as the batch counterpart to the single-entry sibling.

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 usage context: use this tool to save tokens when writing several facts ('économie de tokens'). It also implies that memory_add is for single entries by stating each entry follows its semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond memory_add.

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