memory_create

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that memories are durable and source-anchored, but does not specify side effects (e.g., idempotency, overwrite behavior, or required permissions). It adequately describes binding options but omits mutation/creation confirmation.

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 50-word paragraph with front-loaded verb and resource. Each sentence adds essential context. Slightly verbose but efficient; no waste.

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?

No output schema; description explains input binding well but does not mention return value or confirmation. For a creation tool, an AI agent might need to know if an ID is returned. Lacks operational details like error states or rate limits.

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 low (38%), and the description does not detail individual parameters. It explains the concept of binding but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema. The description provides high-level purpose, not parameter-specific guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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: record durable, source-anchored repo memories bound to code elements. It lists the types of memories (invariant, decision, risk, etc.) and explains the benefit (rationale resurfaces for the next agent). This is specific and distinguishes from sibling memory tools (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 says to use this when discovering non-obvious invariants and decisions, implying create new memories. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like memory_search for retrieval, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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