memory_store

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 the rate-limit scheme ('free, fair-use rate limited') and a behavioral trait beyond the schema ('a real embedding is computed at write time'), which is meaningful context for a write operation. It does not state durability, whether writes are idempotent, or what the response contains, but the annotation-free gaps are partially covered.

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 compact sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with the precondition. The '[Wicked Memory]' prefix is mildly redundant with the tool name, keeping it from a 5, but there is no waste otherwise.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the critical cross-tool precondition and the embedding side effect. It does not explain the return value or failure modes (e.g., nonce reuse, signature mismatch), but the schema and the memory_prepare reference fill most of the gap.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the memory_prepare-derived nonce, timestamp, and signature. The description adds only the cross-tool instruction to fetch these from memory_prepare, which is moderately useful but not new field syntax. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Store a memory') and distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_search/memory_get/memory_update. The bracket-prefixed namespace and 'a real embedding is computed at write time' further pin down what happens, so an agent can tell this is the write path of the memory family without opening schemas.

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 gives a concrete required precondition: 'Run memory_prepare with operation "store" and these same arguments first.' That is a clear when-to-use signal and names the sibling to call beforehand. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., instead of memory_update for existing records), so it falls just below a 5.

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