store_memory

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that response includes a 'conflicts' list and that repo_path defaults to the server's project directory. Does not explicitly state that the tool creates a new memory (mutating) or potential side effects, but the conflict mechanism is a notable behavior.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose, conflict explanation, and one parameter. No filler or repetition; each line adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, conflict handling, and repo_path default. However, without an output schema, it does not fully describe the response (e.g., success indicator, memory ID). Given the complexity of memory storage, a bit more detail on the return format would improve completeness.

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?

Description explains 'repo_path' in detail. 'source' is briefly described as 'optional source label', but 'text' is only implied by the tool's purpose and is not explicitly described. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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?

Clearly states 'Store a semantic memory with an optional source label', specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'retrieve_memory' and 'supersede_learning' by referencing the latter for conflict resolution.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use the alternative tool: if conflicts are detected, use 'supersede_learning'. However, lacks broader guidance on when to use this tool versus other storage tools like 'log_episode' or 'record_decision'.

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