memory_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add the key trait that memories persist 'across sessions' and clarifies that only worthwhile information should be stored. It does not disclose duplicate handling, response shape, size limits, or how memories are later retrieved.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It names the action, the resource, and the relevant content categories without repeating parameter mechanics.

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 schema fully documents all six parameters and the description establishes the persistence concept, which is enough for a basic add operation. Missing are details about the return value, potential duplicates or overwrites, and how stored memories should later be surfaced via memory_search or memory_bootstrap.

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 baseline is 3. The description partly echoes the type enum and gives a content example, but it adds little beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Store a memory'. It enumerates the exact content types (decision, rule, preference, fact) and is clearly distinct from retrieval and lifecycle siblings like memory_search, memory_clear, and memory_forget.

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 when to use the tool: whenever there is a decision, rule, preference, or fact worth persisting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as memory_bootstrap or memory_profile.

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