Upsert a memory entry (requires explicit_user_intent)

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

The description states the tool creates or updates, returns whether created or updated, and rejects credentials. Annotations already indicate idempotent (safe to retry) and not destructive. The description adds the return value behavior and credential rejection, which go beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with 4 sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, constraint, requirement, return value. It is front-loaded with the core action. No fluff or redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return value. It explains the key constraint and intent requirement. However, it does not elaborate on edge cases like tag behavior, metadata usage, or TTL semantics, though the schema descriptions handle these. For a straightforward upsert tool, this is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra: it reiterates credential rejection for keys (already in schema for value) and re-emphasizes explicit_user_intent requirement. It does not add significant semantic meaning beyond the detailed schema descriptions already present.

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 'Create or update a key in memory,' which is a specific verb+resource. It also adds constraints like rejecting credentials and requiring explicit user intent, making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the function is clearly a write/upsert operation, contrasting with read/list/delete siblings like memory_get and memory_forget.

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 explicitly requires 'explicit_user_intent: true' and instructs to set it only when the user explicitly asks to modify memory. It also notes that credential-shaped keys/values are rejected. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when to prefer memory_get or memory_list) and doesn't mention alternatives among siblings.

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