Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cross-session persistence, semantic-similarity search, and destructive cleanup behavior. It could mention irreversible deletion or TTL expiry more explicitly, but the core behavioral traits are visible.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the action mappings are compact and scannable. 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?

For a tool with nine parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision points: which action to select and what each action accomplishes. The output schema exists and the parameter schema covers the remaining details, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 all nine parameters. The description adds conceptual grouping around actions but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, which is exactly the baseline-3 scenario.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Persist and retrieve project context across sessions.' It then enumerates three concrete actions (store, search, delete), each tied to a specific purpose, so an agent can distinguish this memory tool from generic siblings like search and status.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use each action: save a decision/note, find memories by semantic similarity, or clean up by ID/tags/type. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so it is clear but does not fully meet the 'when-not and alternatives' bar.

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