Store multiple memories in one call without enrichment, with optional embeddings computed in a single batch.
Store multiple memories in one call, directly without enrichment. Embeddings (if configured) are computed in a single batched call for efficiency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memories | Yes | Memories to store (at least 1). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / memories / items / properties / memoryType / descriptionPrevious value: -"Memory type (interaction, summary, observation, fact, reflection). Default: interaction."New value: +"Memory type (interaction, summary, observation, fact, reflection, preference, decision, instruction). Default: interaction."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits beyond the schema: no enrichment is performed and embeddings are computed in a single batched call. But it omits anything about write permissions, batch-size limits, partial-failure behavior, or whether storage is reversible.
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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the embedding-efficiency note. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It covers the batching model and enrichment bypass, which is adequate, but says nothing about return values, batch limits, or failure semantics for a multi-item write tool.
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 nested item fields (content, tags, actorId, importance, memoryType, metadata) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 multiple memories in one call") and adds scope clarification ("directly without enrichment"), which implicitly distinguishes it from the enriched path (e.g. memory_process) and the single-item memory_store. However, it never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.
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?
"Store multiple memories in one call" implies the batch use case and "without enrichment" hints at when the direct path is preferable, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over memory_store or memory_process, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.