tcai_memory_store

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. While 'attention-gated, salience-indexed' hints at internal mechanisms, it does not explain side effects, persistence, mutation, or any requirements. The description is too sparse to convey behavioral expectations.

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 starts with the action verb. It contains no filler words and every phrase contributes to the tool's identity, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, side effects, or relationships to sibling tools like tcai_memory_retrieve, leaving significant gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 83%, so parameters are largely documented in the schema. The description adds contextual framing ('emotional memory') but does not explain the role of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage.

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 ('Store') and a clear resource ('an experience in emotional memory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tcai_memory_retrieve. The qualifiers 'attention-gated, salience-indexed' add specificity to the tool's function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tcai_memory_retrieve or tcai_emotion_appraise. The description gives no context for appropriate invocation scenarios or prerequisites.

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