append_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: preserving current content (non-destructive) and updating the modified timestamp. Lacks details on permissions, error handling, or limits, but the provided information is valuable.

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?

Single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the essential action. No redundant or irrelevant information. Every word is purposeful and concise.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nesting), the description covers the main purpose and key behavioral traits. It could be enhanced by briefly contrasting with 'update_memory' or noting that the memory must exist, but overall sufficient for context.

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 does not add significant value beyond the schema; it reinforces that 'content' is markdown but no additional format or constraints. Meets expectations but does not exceed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('existing memory'), clearly indicating the action of adding markdown content without overwriting. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_memory' (which likely replaces) and 'create_memory'.

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 implies when to use (appending to existing memory) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'update_memory'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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