memex_store

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

The description explains behavior beyond the annotations: it states that unknown or another user's IDs are rejected, and it reveals the reply echoes recorded_at and any declared validity window so confirmation is possible without a recall. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and response characteristics beyond the raw annotation flags. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 compact but information-dense, with three sentences that each earn their place: purpose, optional parameters and response behavior, then an explicit exclusion. It front-loads the core action and verbatim requirement before details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a write tool with one required parameter and a nested metadata object, the description covers what to do, when not to do it, what parameters matter, and what the response will contain. The nested relation declarations are already documented in the schema, so nothing essential is left for the agent to infer.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, providing descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context, especially for supersedes by explaining that IDs must be valid and owned by the user, and for the temporal parameters by indicating they are optional and represent a validity window. It groups some optional parameters but does not add detail for metadata/relation declarations, which the schema already handles.

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 job: to remember or store one new, self-contained memory verbatim. It explicitly highlights that exact text should be stored, not a summary, and it distinguishes this from memex_correct in the closing sentence. An agent can immediately tell what resource this acts on and how it differs from its siblings.

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 explicitly says 'Do not use this to correct something already in memory -- use memex_correct with the old id instead of storing a near-duplicate,' giving both a when-not-to-use condition and the exact alternative. It also implies use for genuinely new memories by emphasizing 'one new, self-contained memory,' giving clear context for the expected use case.

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