memory_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the intended behavior (recording memories) and mentions durability and source-anchoring, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, what happens on duplicate bindings, or any prerequisites. Adequate but lacks explicit behavioral details expected for a creation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and key details. Every word adds value without redundancy. Excellent conciseness for the complexity.

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 (7 parameters, rich binding options, no output schema), the description covers the high-level purpose and binding targets, but lacks details on internal behavior (validation, dedup, response). Adequate for a straightforward creation tool but not fully complete.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by summarizing the binding targets ('symbol, chunk, path, edge/call-path, commit, or GitHub ref'), but does not detail the individual parameters within the bind object or other fields like tags/source. Provides a high-level overview but not comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 records durable, source-anchored repo memories (listing specific kinds like Invariant, Decision, etc.) and explains the purpose ('so the rationale resurfaces for the next agent editing that code'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on creation (vs. search, update, etc.).

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 when to use: 'Capture non-obvious invariants and decisions as you discover them.' It does not explicitly exclude when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the action-oriented language imply appropriate use. Could be improved with explicit exclusions.

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