create_memory_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation and specifies naming constraints (letters, numbers, underscores, hyphens), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent/reversible.

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?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized with three focused paragraphs: purpose statement, usage context, and parameter/return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic operation, naming constraints, and return indication, but lacks details about error conditions, response format, or integration with sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about what 'success status and message' entails.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description repeats the parameter name and requirement but adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema. The naming constraint information is useful but doesn't significantly enhance understanding of the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's basic description.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('create') and resource ('new named memory library'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_memory_libraries' and 'switch_memory_library' which perform different operations on the same resource. It also specifies the function is for 'organized knowledge storage' and mentions different use cases (projects, domains, contexts).

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 context about when to use this tool ('for different projects, domains, or contexts') and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on creation rather than listing, querying, or switching libraries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'list_memory_libraries' for checking existing libraries first.

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