memory_store_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation (storing an event) but does not explain persistence semantics, duplicate handling, idempotency, permissions, failures, or what an agent should expect after invocation.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core operation and then captures the event semantics without filler. Every part contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 schema fully documents all parameters, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and write-side behavior, it stops short of fully covering behavioral expectations and routing to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning by composing actor, verb, and object into a sentence and clarifying that amount is a control quantity. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 states a specific operation (store an action event) and gives the event model: actor performs verb on object, optionally with amount and metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from a sibling like memory_store_state, which stores state rather than actions.

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 wording makes it clear that this tool is for action events, but it never explicitly says when to use this instead of memory_store_state or other siblings. The intended usage is implied by the action-event phrasing and sibling names, but no explicit exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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