store_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'store new information' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether storage is persistent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that appears to create data.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('store', 'new information', 'optional tags') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (one nested), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'storing' entails operationally, what format the information should be in, how tags are used, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks critical context for proper invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'information' and 'optional tags' which loosely map to 'content' and 'metadata.tags', but doesn't explain the 'metadata.type' parameter at all or provide any format/constraint details. This partial coverage is insufficient given the schema's complexity with nested objects.

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 action ('store') and resource ('new information') with additional functionality ('with optional tags'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_memory' or 'search_by_tag', which would require mentioning this is specifically for creating/adding new memories rather than retrieving or searching existing ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_memory' or 'search_by_tag'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.

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