store_memory

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses overwrite behavior for existing keys and mentions the return format (success indicator and stored items). No other behavioral traits (e.g., persistence scope, size limits) are covered, but the key behaviors are addressed.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple key-value store with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and return format. It lacks details on error handling and persistence scope, but is mostly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining input_data is a dictionary of key-value pairs and that it updates memory, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'object' type.

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 'Store one or more key–value pairs in persistent memory', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like retrieve_memory and forget_memory.

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 explains overwrite behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like retrieve_memory or forget_memory. No usage context or exclusions are provided, making it adequate but lacking explicit guidance.

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