tcai_memory_store

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two behavioral traits—'attention-gated' and 'salience-indexed'—which add meaningful context beyond the simple 'store' operation. However, it does not discuss persistence, overwrite behavior, side effects, or prerequisites. This is partial disclosure but not a contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds three useful qualifiers (emotional, attention-gated, salience-indexed). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet informative.

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 six parameters and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose but omits critical usage context. It does not explain return values or side effects, and offers no guidance on when to use this tool over the many memory-related siblings. The schema covers parameter details, but the overall description leaves gaps in usage guidelines and behavioral expectations, making it minimally adequate yet incomplete.

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 provides detailed descriptions for 83% of the parameters (all except attentionLevel), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the tool as 'attention-gated' and 'salience-indexed', which directly informs the likely role of the attentionLevel parameter and the emotional dimensions (arousal, valence, dominance) in indexing. This goes beyond the schema's bare range definitions and helps the agent understand how the parameters interact.

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 specifies both the verb ('Store') and the resource ('an experience in emotional memory'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. The parenthetical qualifiers 'attention-gated, salience-indexed' distinguish it from sibling tools like tcai_memory_retrieve and wm_encode by emphasizing its unique emotional memory focus and processing traits.

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 implies its usage for storing emotionally significant experiences but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'emotional memory' hints at a specific domain but leaves the agent to infer the selection boundary.

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