delimit_memory_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation ('store') and hints at plan-based behavior (free vs pro). However, it lacks details about side effects (e.g., overwriting existing memories), return values, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema (indicated but not shown) might offload some transparency, but the description itself is insufficient.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the primary function. The second sentence adds plan information without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 annotations, the description provides the basic purpose and plan context. However, it omits behavioral details like idempotency, expected output, or error scenarios. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to use confidently.

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% for 3 parameters (content, tags, context), and the schema already provides clear descriptions (e.g., 'The content to remember.'). The tool description does not add any extra information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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: 'Store a memory entry for future retrieval.' The verb 'store' and resource 'memory entry' are specific. Among sibling tools like delimit_memory_recent and delimit_memory_search (which handle retrieval), this tool is uniquely identified as the storage mechanism.

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 mentions plan limitations ('Free: basic store and recent retrieval. Pro: structured search across all memories.'), which gives context on when to use this tool relative to retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct the agent to alternative tools for searching. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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