add_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Store a new memory.' It omits behavioral traits such as whether this is a write operation, side effects, or authorization needs. The constraint on scope IDs is noted but insufficient for full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary 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 complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not clarify behavior for parameters like 'infer' or 'enable_graph,' though these are documented in the schema. Output schema mitigates need for return value explanation, but the description could provide more behavioral context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that at least one of user_id, agent_id, or run_id is required—a cross-parameter constraint not explicit in the schema alone. This justifies a score above baseline.

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 a new memory,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_memory or get_memories, which have different purposes.

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 includes a requirement ('at least one of user_id, agent_id, or run_id'), which provides context for valid invocations. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_memories or update_memory.

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