vrm_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Snippets are auto-extracted' which adds some context about automation. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'store'), permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to existing memories. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded. 'Store a memory with file citations' states the core purpose immediately, and 'Snippets are auto-extracted' adds a key feature. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'memory' entails, how citations work, what the tool returns, or error conditions. For a storage tool with multiple parameters and siblings, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'file citations' which relates to the 'citations' parameter, and 'memory' which might relate to 'subject' or 'fact'. However, it doesn't explain any of the 6 parameters (subject, fact, reason, tags, ttlDays, citations) or their purposes. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 with file citations' specifies the verb (store) and resource (memory). It distinguishes from siblings like vrm_list (list) and vrm_retrieve (retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from vrm_search, which might also involve memory operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vrm_list or vrm_search. It mentions 'Snippets are auto-extracted' which hints at a feature, but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are present.

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