Add Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the important trigger constraint (must be explicitly requested), which is real added value, but says nothing about persistence scope, duplicate handling, required permissions, or whether writes are reversible for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the invocation constraint follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. What remains thin is context about the target memory store and whether a valid 'project' must already exist, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to 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 schema already documents tags, text, title, and project. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ajoute un texte brut à la mémoire'), and the qualifier 'texte brut' implicitly separates it from add_url and add_file. It stops short of naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear, strong usage condition: call only when Denis explicitly requests it in the current message, never on the agent's own initiative. It does not name an alternative tool or the reverse condition (e.g. when to prefer add_url/add_file), so it stays at a solid 4 rather than a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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