memory_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important runtime trait: Hindsight ingest is async by default so the call returns before LLM extraction completes, avoiding client timeouts. It does not cover failure modes, deduplication/overwrite behavior on existing content, or how the 'active' provider is resolved.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the one non-obvious operational caveat. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what is returned (an id? a confirmation?), whether repeated content dedupes, and how the active provider is chosen. The async caveat is well covered, but those gaps leave an agent guessing about return handling.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including the bank scoping dual-purpose and async flag) are already documented in the schema; the description's provider list merely echoes that. The vague `metadata` field ("provider-specific") gets no clarification beyond the schema in either place.

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?

States a specific verb ("Store text") and resource ("active memory provider"), and enumerates the concrete backends (Hindsight bank, mem0 user scope, Cognee dataset). It is clearly the write counterpart to siblings like memory_recall and memory_search, but it never names those siblings to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 purpose implies when to call it (persisting text), and the async note gives runtime guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus memory_import, memory_consolidate, or memory_reflect, nor any statement of prerequisites or what should not be added.

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