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 states content is stored verbatim but does not disclose whether storing overwrites existing memories with the same content, how the memory is deduplicated, or if there are any side effects (e.g., triggering indexing). The description is too brief for a write operation on a memory system.

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 very short (two sentences), but it is not well-structured. It front-loads the core action but is too terse, leaving out important contextual information. It could be more concise if it included more meaningful details in the same space.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 50% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavior when parameters are omitted (e.g., what happens if no scope is provided?). The complexity of a memory store operation warrants more detail than provided.

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 50% (3 out of 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. For parameters like 'tags' and 'scope' that lack schema descriptions, the description is silent, creating a gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema partially covers the parameters.

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 verb ('store') and resource ('long-term memory'), and specifies that content is stored exactly as provided. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory.update, memory.delete, and memory.search, though the exact semantics of 'long-term memory' vs. other memory types could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like memory.update (for modifications) or memory.list (for retrieval). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a project context, or when to use parameters like scope vs. tags.

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