tcai_memory_store

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It hints at internal processing ('attention-gated, salience-indexed') but fails to state whether the operation is idempotent, persistent, or destructive. Side effects and response behavior are omitted.

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 sentence of 10 words, achieving high efficiency. However, it is too brief for the complexity of the tool, sacrificing informative content for brevity.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the effect of the 'store' operation beyond the basic purpose.

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% (5 of 6 parameters described). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain how concepts like 'attention' or 'salience' relate to the parameters, nor does it compensate for the undocumented 'attentionLevel' parameter.

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 'Store an experience in emotional memory' clearly identifies the action (store) and the resource (emotional memory). The additional terms 'attention-gated, salience-indexed' add specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tcai_memory_retrieve, though not explicitly.

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_emotion_appraise or tcai_capability_model. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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