memory_store_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains parsing, fragment searchability, version superseding, and crossref skipping. It does not mention destructive actions or auth, but for a store operation, this is sufficient.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with a leading summary and Args/Returns sections. It is informative without being verbose, earning its sentences.

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 (markdown parsing, multiple fragment types, crossrefs) and the presence of an output schema (not shown here but implied), the description covers return format and key behaviors. It is complete for agent usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: content as full markdown, document_key as stable identifier, version default 1, tags applied, metadata merged, skip_fragment_crossrefs default True. Every parameter is given meaningful context.

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 tool stores a structured document as 'root memory + searchable fragments', with a specific verb 'store' and resource 'document'. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_create by explaining the markdown parsing and fragment creation, which is unique.

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 description implicitly indicates usage for storing markdown documents with automatic parsing, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like memory_create for simple memories. Still, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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