Store Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Store information in persistent memory', implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'persistent' entails (e.g., durability, storage limits). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Store information in persistent memory'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective agent use.

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 (key, value, type, expiresIn). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'type' affects storage or what 'expiresIn' defaults to. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Store information in persistent memory' clearly states the verb ('Store') and resource ('information in persistent memory'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory_retrieve' or 'file_write', which would require mentioning it's specifically for memory storage versus retrieval or file operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'memory_retrieve' for retrieval, 'file_write' for file storage, or other memory-related operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage.

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