memory_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: auto-enrichment steps and, notably, auto-pruning as a side effect of a store operation. However, it does not say what auto-pruning deletes, whether the call is synchronous, whether enrichment can fail, or what permissions are needed.

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 dense sentences with the action front-loaded and the enrichment behaviors itemized in a parenthetical. No filler, and the 'primary method' claim is placed where it reinforces the purpose statement.

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 tool with six parameters of nested/loose typing and no annotations or output schema, the description covers what the tool does but leaves key gaps: no return-value guidance, no guidance on the destructive auto-prune side effect's scope, and no resolution of the overlap with memory_store and memory_store_batch.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the auto-extraction and auto-scoring defaults. The description's mentions of 'importance scoring' and 'tag extraction' merely restate what the schema says, adding no syntax, range, or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Store a memory') and adds the differentiator of auto-enrichment (importance scoring, tag extraction, summarization, pruning). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_store or memory_store_batch, which appear to do overlapping work, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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?

'This is the primary method for recording interactions' implies a default choice, which is some guidance. But it names no alternatives, no when-not conditions, and never explains why an agent would use this over memory_store or memory_store_batch despite those siblings existing.

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