add_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses fallback to MEM0_DEFAULT_USER_ID and tagging with MEM0_DEFAULT_AGENT_ID unless overridden, providing useful behavioral details beyond what the schema shows. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but for a create operation this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, the first a clear one-line summary, followed by two purpose-specific sentences on scoping and defaults. No filler.

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 tool is a simple creation operation with an output schema. The description covers all behavioral nuances (default IDs, scoping), making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that user_id, agent_id, and run_id are for scoping, and that agent_id defaults to MEM0_DEFAULT_AGENT_ID. This gives semantic meaning to all optional parameters, though text is self-evident.

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 opens with 'Store a new memory,' a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_memory or delete_memory. It also hints at scoping semantics, reinforcing the 'add' operation.

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 clear operational context: it explains the scoping requirements ('Provide at least one of user_id, agent_id, or run_id') and default behaviors. It doesn't compare to list/get/update/delete, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage context is solid.

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