add_context_memory

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'TTL-based retention' but this is already captured by the schema parameter. No contradictions, but the description does not disclose behavior like overwrites, error conditions, or required permissions.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. The most critical information is front-loaded ('Persist key-value context for future sessions with TTL-based retention'). Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and many optional behavioral controls, the description is too minimal. It does not explain session_id usage, overwrite behavior, or the effect of optional parameters like ritual_strip and response_mode, which are important for correct invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'key-value' and 'TTL', matching some parameters but omitting reference to optional formatting parameters (ritual_strip, response_mode, response_profile).

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 action ('persist'), the resource ('key-value context'), and a key feature ('TTL-based retention'). It also adds 'Free' as a value proposition. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_witness_memory' which retrieves rather than stores context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with other tools. Usage context must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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