store_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behaviors ('automatically generating unique keys and updating indices') but does not explain idempotency handling, return values, or potential side effects like overwrites. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

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 sentence that conveys the core action, scope, and key behaviors without unnecessary filler. Every phrase contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values or error conditions. It covers key generation and index updates but omits details about idempotency key usage and batch alternative. For a simple tool this is adequate but has gaps, so a mid-range score is warranted.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning; it mentions auto key generation but does not directly connect it to the idempotency_key parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 'Store a single memory' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a single-item write operation. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like recall_memories (retrieval) and store_memories_batch (batch storage) by explicitly stating 'single memory'.

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 usage for a single memory but does not explicitly contrast it with the batch sibling or mention when not to use it. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implied rather than clearly stated.

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