trailmem_store

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

Discloses memory storage behavior, character limits, and duplicate rejection. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden; the output schema likely covers return values. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints and error behavior. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity, the high parameter count (14) and 0% schema coverage require much richer description. Missing explanations for optional linking, edge types, force, pinned, etc. Output schema exists but description does not reference it.

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?

Only explains constraints for two parameters (title, content) among 14. Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate but fails for most parameters (force, pinned, link_to, etc.). Detailed param semantics are missing.

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 action 'Save a new memory' and specifies the resource types (decision/lesson/task/constraint) with optional linking. It distinguishes from siblings like trailmem_edit (edit) and trailmem_query (query) by focusing on creation.

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?

Provides explicit constraints (title 3-60 chars, content 50+ chars, English version) and duplicate handling ('rejected/blocked with existing #id — edit that instead'). Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives beyond duplicates.

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