memory_store

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. 'Atomic durable' hints at transactional and persistent storage, but fails to disclose error handling, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., overwriting), or whether the operation is synchronous. Insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence. However, brevity sacrifices necessary detail; it could be restructured to front-load the action and then list parameter context. No wasted words, but not optimally 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?

With 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return value, error cases, and storage behavior (e.g., uniqueness constraints). Agents cannot reliably use this tool without guessing.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds no parameter explanations. Properties like 'title', 'detail', 'kind', and 'topics' are not described; 'kind' especially is ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Store' and resource 'memory' with qualifiers 'atomic durable' hinting at transactional and persistent behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., memory_forget, memory_recall) by implying a write operation, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_recall or memory_update. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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