add_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that mem0 performs server-side extraction ('not every call creates a stored entry') and that the memory bucket is auto-derived from identity, with no way to specify the target. This is valuable non-obvious behavior. It does not mention potential side effects like overwrites or deduplication, but the disclosure is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, the extraction caveat, and identity-based bucket. No redundant phrases or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, invocation triggers, behavioral caveats, and identity constraints. With an output schema available, explaining return values is unnecessary. Sibling tools are easily distinguishable, and the edge case of extraction means the description is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the overall purpose but does not elaborate on parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the 'role' default). It does not clarify how role affects extraction or storage, but the schema is sufficient for basic usage.

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 action ('Store a new memory... in long-term memory'), specifies the types of content (fact, preference, exchange), and distinguishes it from siblings by being the write operation (vs search/list/delete). It also adds nuance about server-side extraction, making the purpose fully concrete.

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 tells when to use it ('when you learn something durable... or on explicit request'), which is strong usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (though siblings are obvious). This is clear context but not a full when/when-not comparison.

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