create_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it declares the failure mode ('Errors if the target file already exists,' i.e., non-overwriting create), and frames notes as 'untrusted inert history,' which signals prompt-injection safety semantics. Missing details are return value/path and any permission requirements.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the agent support matrix, then the failure mode. No filler or repetition.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers agent eligibility and the overwrite-prevention behavior, but leaves 'project' unexplained and says nothing about the created note's location or what the call returns on success.

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 60%; the description restates the agent set (also in the schema) and the file-exists error but adds nothing for 'project' or 'content,' which are undocumented in both places. It neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds syntax beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Write a note into Claude, Codex, or Grok first-party memory markdown.' It scopes the write to specific agent stores, which meaningfully separates it from the sibling put_note, though it never names that alternative 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?

Gives an explicit when-not list of target agents: 'Cursor, OpenCode, Gemini, AGY, and Copilot have no first-party memory store,' telling the agent when this tool will not apply. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead (e.g., put_note) for those agents.

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