Add Zynx Memory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'persist'. It fails to mention side effects (database write), failure modes (if table not allowlisted), or return values, and doesn't clarify whether this creates a new record or updates existing ones.

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 concise sentence that directly states the action, with no extraneous words, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description only covers the basic purpose. Missing details about parameter meanings, constraints, and expected behavior make it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 tool description gives no parameter semantics; it doesn't explain 'kind', 'metadata', or 'projectId'. The input schema only describes 'content' and 'tableName', leaving 60% of parameters unexplained, and the description does not compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Persist') and identifies a resource ('project, research, coding, or automation memory') within a 'Supabase table', clearly stating the action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_memory or query_table, leaving some ambiguity about when this is the right tool.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description lacks context on when to prefer this tool over search_memory or query_table, and it doesn't mention prerequisites like table allowlisting or projectId requirements.

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