memory_store_state

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 states that the tool 'stores a state event', which implies a write operation, but it does not disclose whether the operation appends or overwrites, whether duplicate events are allowed, or what side effects or response to expect. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every part contributes to understanding the core purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important contextual details such as behavior on duplicate writes, timestamp defaulting nuances, and how this relates to the other memory tools. The schema covers parameter names but not operational context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a relational gloss on entity/metric/value, but it does not meaningfully expand on the parameter semantics already present 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 uses a specific verb ('存', meaning store) and identifies the resource ('状态事件到记忆库', a state event to memory). It clearly explains the semantic of entity/metric/value with optional unit and tags, which distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling memory_store_action, though not explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_store_action or other siblings like memory_trend or memory_summary. The description implies a use case but does not state any when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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