memory_upsert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: persistence, searchability, embedding, and indexing. However, it does not mention that 'upsert' can overwrite an existing entry when an id is provided, which is a meaningful behavioral aspect not covered elsewhere.

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 short sentences deliver the core action and key processing details without any fluff. It is efficient, front-loaded with the verb, and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 adequately covers persistence and semantic recall for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. It lacks explicit return-value information and does not mention the update capability, but those are partially addressed by the id parameter description, making it reasonably 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context for 'namespace' as a collection key and 'text' as content, but no additional parameter-level detail beyond that, matching the baseline.

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 text into a persistent, searchable memory namespace, and it mentions embedding/indexing for semantic recall. This is a specific verb+resource and unmistakably distinguishes a write operation from sibling tools like memory_search.

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 saving text for later retrieval but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like memory_search. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites, so the guidance is only implicit.

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