Store Memory

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

The description states the core write behavior: storing a new memory. The annotation 'idempotentHint: true' already covers repeat-call safety, but the description does not explain what idempotency means here, such as whether duplicate content is deduplicated, replaced, or ignored. There is no direct contradiction, but behavioral context beyond annotations is minimal.

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 a single compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient and easy to scan, though it is so terse that it misses useful guidance about siblings and behavior.

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 rich schema descriptions and the presence of an output schema, an agent can likely invoke the tool correctly with the required parameters. However, the description alone does not clarify when to choose this over store_memories or how the idempotent behavior manifests, so the overall definition is adequate but not complete.

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 each parameter is already well documented, including tags constraints, importance priority, and memory_type enum. The description adds no semantic value beyond singling out tags, which is already required by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 uses a clear verb ('store') and resource ('memory'), and identifies tags as part of the operation. It is not a tautology because it adds that a new memory is created with tags. However, it does not distinguish this singular tool from its sibling 'store_memories', so an agent must infer the difference from the name 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'store_memories' for bulk storage, 'update_memory' for existing memories, or 'recall'/'search_memories' for retrieval. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and input schema.

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