mnemonic_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the overwrite behavior (update vs. skip) and that statistics are returned, but it does not explicitly state that new memories (with non-matching IDs) are added to the store. This leaves a gap about the core import action for new entries.

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 tightly written, with a clear opening purpose, a short format note, bullet-style options, and a return-value statement. Every line is useful and contributes to understanding without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the input format, the overwrite behavior, and the return type, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. It lacks an explicit statement about adding new memories that don't already exist, but this is largely implied by the word 'import' and the overwrite semantics.

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 already describes both parameters (data, overwrite), and the description adds value by expanding on the overwrite behavior, including what happens when overwrite is false. It also specifies that data must contain a 'memories' array, reinforcing the schema's description.

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 'Import memories from a previous export' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, export, and search. The format requirement and overwrite option further clarify its unique role.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when importing from a previous export, with the requirement that data must be in the export format. It does not explicitly spell out alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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