commit_mem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: upsert semantics, returning an opaque version for optimistic concurrency, and idempotent behavior via `idempotency_key`. These are important beyond what annotations would provide. It doesn't mention failure modes or limitations, but the disclosed traits are significant and clearly described.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. It uses three short paragraphs that each add value: purpose, upsert/version behavior, and idempotency. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tighter by merging related thoughts. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the core upsert and idempotency behavior but leaves many parameters unexplained, which could lead an agent to misuse the tool. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the input side is under-documented. A more comprehensive description should at least summarize the role of key parameters like `memory_type`, `priority`, and `ttl`.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains `idempotency_key` in detail; the other 10 parameters (e.g., `key`, `value`, `ttl`, `priority`, `metadata`, `memory_type`) are not elaborated. The description does not clarify what `value` should be, how `memory_type` affects behavior, or the meaning of fields like `canonical` and `importance`. This is a significant gap for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 memory entry to hosted Bilinc Cloud.' It further explains the upsert behavior ('Creates the entry if it is new and revises it if the key already exists'), which distinguishes it from siblings like `revise` and `recall`. This is a specific verb+resource with differentiation.

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 gives context by explaining that the returned version can be passed to `revise` or `forget`, implying when those tools are appropriate. It also explains idempotency usage for retries. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives for read/delete scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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