memory.store

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that a 0.01 USDC micro-transaction is required, which the schema alone would not surface. It stops short of stating whether the payment is per-call or per-key, or what happens on key collision.

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, action first and cost second, with no filler. The 'Agent Memory Bank:' prefix is mildly redundant given the tool name but costs little.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the cost is disclosed. However, for a mutating store operation it omits key-collision/overwrite behavior and payment lifecycle, leaving real gaps an agent would care about.

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 100%, so memoryKey and memoryValue are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the payment requirement behind paymentHash but adds no format, constraints, or collision semantics. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb and resource: store arbitrary context/snippets/vectors persistently in an agent memory bank. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling memory.retrieve without opening the schema, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over alternatives, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the store/retrieve pairing.

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