memory_import

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

With no annotations, the description takes full burden. It reveals rate limiting, and describes the side effects of each strategy (e.g., 'replace' clears all memories first). This is valuable beyond what structured fields provide, though it could mention whether the operation is atomic or rolls back on failure.

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?

Extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details on rate limiting and arguments. Every sentence is necessary, no fluff.

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 complexity (import strategies, rate limiting), the description covers key aspects: what it does, how arguments work, and behavioral constraints. It does not mention error handling or maximum data size, but the presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return value explanation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'data' parameter as a list of memory dictionaries with expected keys (content, metadata, tags, created_at), and the 'strategy' parameter with its three options and meanings. This adds significant value over the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Import memories') and resource ('from JSON format'), distinguishing it from many sibling tools like memory_create, memory_merge, etc. The verb 'import' and specific format 'JSON' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides rate limiting guidance ('60s cooldown') and explains three strategies (replace, merge, append) with their behaviors. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives like memory_create_batch or memory_merge, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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