memory_add_observation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool persists information across sessions, which is useful, but it doesn't mention potential duplicates, idempotency, automatic session association, or return behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a clear verb-first structure. Every sentence contributes purpose and usage context without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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's moderate complexity (5 params, 3 required, enums), the description covers the core purpose and usage. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a write operation, and the description adequately explains the main intent. Minor gaps remain around behavior on duplicate entries or exact session attribution semantics, but these are not critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces some enum values (e.g., discoveries, gotchas, decisions) but adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. It doesn't compensate with extra context for parameters like effectiveness or concepts.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('observation'), and clarifies the scope ('from the current session'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like memory_add_concept and memory_add_connection by focusing on observations and listing concrete examples (discoveries, gotchas, decisions, trade-offs).

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to capture discoveries, gotchas, decisions, trade-offs, or problem-solutions that should be remembered across sessions'), providing clear context. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't reach a 5, but the guidance is unambiguous.

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