Save a new memory with FastEmbed embeddings and Q-value tracking so relevant context is retrieved and ranked for productive sessions.
Store a new memory with FastEmbed embedding and Q-value tracking
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | fact | |
| agent | No | main | |
| content | Yes | ||
| client_id | No | Associated client/entity ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the behavioral burden. It does mention that the tool computes a FastEmbed embedding and tracks Q-values, which is extra implementation behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation creates permanent state (mutation), or whether it is destructive/idempotent, or what happens to existing memories.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and core function are stated immediately, and every word adds something useful.
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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, while the description explains only a generic store action. The meaningful distinction between type/agent/client_id is not given, and no information about the result of the operation is provided. Given the overall simplicity, this is adequate but contains clear gaps.
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 low (25% - only client_id gets a description). The tool description does not explain the type, agent, or content parameters, nor does it clarify allowed values or relationships. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, and it does not.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Store a new memory') and adds implementation detail (FastEmbed embedding, Q-value tracking). It is clear what the tool does, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like search_memory (retrieval) and log_prediction/log_outcome (logging different events).
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 that the tool should be used to add memories, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over siblings or when not to use it. No mention of alternatives or exclusions is present, so the guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.