ck_memory_record

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

The description states "Idempotent: re-submitting the same source_id updates the existing record rather than duplicating it." However, annotations set idempotentHint to false, creating a contradiction. According to rules, score 1 if description contradicts annotations. Additionally, the description does not disclose other behavioral traits like performance or side effects beyond what annotations already provide, but the contradiction is the primary issue.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and action, followed by idempotency detail, parameter guidance, and sibling comparisons. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameter behavior (memory types, record_type values), sibling differentiation, and idempotency. It does not explain return values, but output schema handles that. A score of 4 reflects good completeness with a small gap in not explicitly stating that the tool is not read-only (though that is implied by 'write operation').

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?

With schema coverage at 75%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that `memory` can be a plain string or an object with specific subfields, clarifies the effect of `record_type` on retrieval, and describes `tags` as string or array. This improves understanding of how to structure inputs.

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: "Write a governed memory record so future agents can explicitly retrieve it via ck_memory_search." It specifies the verb (write) and resource (governed memory record) and differentiates from siblings by mentioning ck_finding and ck_goal for specific use cases.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: "Use ck_memory_record to persist knowledge that should survive session boundaries." It also contrasts with siblings: "Use ck_finding for policy violations with a ruling decision. Use ck_goal for durable multi-session intent." This leaves no ambiguity.

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