memory_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that memories are stored with auto-categorization and importance scoring, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not detail return values or effects on existing memories, but for a straightforward add operation this is adequate.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides immediately useful examples of appropriate content. Every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description establishes the tool's purpose, primary use cases, and key behaviors, and the schema provides the required content plus a type enum. However, with no output schema and low parameter coverage, an agent may be uncertain about optional parameters like tags, project, and how importance scoring interacts with the provided importance value. It is adequate but not complete.

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 20%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'type' and 'importance' via 'auto-categorization and importance scoring', but it does not clarify the 'tags' or 'project' parameters, nor the meaning and range of the importance score. This is insufficient coverage for a 5-parameter tool.

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 ('a memory'), and describes the added behaviors of auto-categorization and importance scoring. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_search, memory_list, and memory_forget.

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 second sentence provides clear context for when to use the tool by listing concrete content types: decisions, findings, debug insights, infrastructure details, user preferences, and session summaries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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