memory_store

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, persistence guarantees, or error behavior (e.g., handling invalid 'kind'). This leaves the agent unaware of critical operational characteristics.

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 very concise at two sentences, with no superfluous words. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as key details are omitted. Despite this, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 (2 required), zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover the behavior of optional parameters, nor does it hint at the output schema (though one exists). The agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool correctly in diverse scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds limited parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'kind' has a set of allowed values, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the purpose or expected format of 'content,' 'tags,' 'source,' 'project,' or 'priority,' leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Store a memory.' It specifies that 'kind' must be one of the listed values, which clarifies the resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory_update,' which could cause confusion about additive vs. updative behavior.

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 provides a list of valid 'kind' values but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_update, memory_delete). It lacks context on prerequisites, common use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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