memory_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Without enrichment" hints that no automatic processing occurs, but it says nothing about persistence guarantees, deduplication, side effects, permission needs, or whether the call is repeatable — thin for a write-side tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the usage condition immediately following.

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?

With six parameters, a nested metadata object, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition should carry more behavioral weight than it does. It adequately explains when to use the tool but leaves the write semantics and error/idempotency behavior unexplained.

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%, with defaults and an enumerated memoryType documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of importance/tags echoes existing field docs without adding format or interaction detail, making 3 the correct 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Store a memory") and adds a scope qualifier ("directly without enrichment") that implicitly separates it from the enrichment-oriented sibling memory_process. It does not name the alternative tool outright, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: "Use this when you already have importance/tags or want precise control", which maps directly to the schema's importance and tags parameters. No when-not guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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