memory_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool adds a fact but does not mention mutation, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects (e.g., whether duplicate content is allowed). The description is insufficient for safe usage.

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, consisting of two short sentences and a line break. All information is front-loaded with no redundant text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 presence of 4 parameters (2 with enums) and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, behavioral details, and guidance on the output. The sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer context on its own.

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 should compensate. It briefly explains 'target' but leaves 'content', 'category', and 'tags' unexplained. The enum values for 'category' (e.g., 'user_pref', 'project') are not defined, and 'tags' format is unspecified. Minimal value added over the schema.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'a durable fact to shared memory', effectively capturing the tool's core functionality. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on addition vs. listing, removal, search, update, or summary.

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 explicit guidance on when to use 'target=user' vs 'target=memory', aiding in correct invocation. However, it does not discuss when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., memory_update for modifying existing facts).

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