Remember a new fact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fails if the name exists and mentions linking with [[other-name]]. However, it does not describe the success response, permissions, or other side effects beyond the failure condition.

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 only four sentences, each providing essential information: primary action, constraint, type definitions, and formatting guidance. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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 four required parameters and no output schema, the description covers failure conditions, naming conventions, type guidance, and cross-referencing. It does not detail the return value on success, but the coverage is otherwise thorough for practical use.

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 parameters with 75% coverage. The description adds valuable context: naming convention (kebab/snake slug, type-prefixed), the purpose of each type, and content guidelines for 'body' (e.g., include Why and How to apply for feedback/project). This enriches the schema and aids correct invocation.

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 'Create a new memory' as the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that 'memory_update' should be used if the name exists, and enumerates the four memory types (user, feedback, project, reference), which differentiate this tool from other memory tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use 'memory_update' instead of duplicating, and provides type definitions to guide categorization. However, it does not explicitly describe exclusions for other sibling tools like memory_search or memory_index, though the context is clear.

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