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 discloses key behaviors: parsing markdown into typed fragments, version supersession when version>1, and the skip_fragment_crossrefs option. However, it does not mention idempotency, destructive potential, or authentication requirements, which prevents a perfect score.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a brief explanation of parsing behavior, then uses bullet points for all arguments. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

Given the complexity of 6 parameters and existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameters with meaningful details, explains the return format concisely, and provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional external knowledge.

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 compensate, and it does excellently. The Args section explains each parameter in detail (e.g., 'content: Full markdown document content', 'version: If >1, supersedes previous version'), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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's purpose: 'Store a structured document as a root memory + searchable fragments.' It specifies the verb (store), resource (structured document), and the unique behavior of parsing markdown into typed fragments, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like memory_create or memory_create_section.

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 implies usage for full document storage with markdown parsing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like memory_create or memory_import. It lacks explicit when/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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