mnemonic_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about persistence ('persist across sessions') and trigger-based surfacing ('surface them when relevant topics come up'). However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or error behaviors, though for a create operation this is minimal. The description does not contradict any structured data.

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 tight and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The example is well-structured and earns its place by concretely demonstrating usage. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core use-case, provides an illustrative example, and explains memory behaviors like persistence and triggering. It might not mention edge cases or limitations, but the schema and output schema handle the rest, so nothing critical is missing.

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 schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by presenting a complete example with realistic values for title, content, tags, and triggers, illustrating how to use the parameters in practice. It also conceptually explains how tags and triggers work, which enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Create a new memory,' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mnemonic_update or mnemonic_delete. The example further confirms the agent's understanding of what 'create' entails, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this to store important information that should persist across sessions,' providing clear context on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'create' operation is self-evident versus siblings. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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