store_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the default active status and the ability to set to proposed, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting, source-backing semantics) and permissions.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (status default) efficiently. Front-loaded with action and scope, but could be slightly improved by adding parameter hints without bloat.

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 13 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return value, parameter details (e.g., 'claim', 'tags'), and usage context, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for most parameters (only hints at 'status'). The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving agents to guess parameter roles.

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 'Store a repo-scoped source-backed memory' with specific use cases (durable decisions, gotchas, etc.). It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like propose_memory or store_decision, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 a list of suitable use cases but does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving room for confusion among siblings.

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