memorize

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the backend auto-titles, auto-tags, summarizes, and links memories to the knowledge graph, and that memories are private. It does not cover potential side effects like duplicate handling, but this is a strong baseline.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes essential information: what it does, when to call it, how it behaves, and its privacy guarantee. No waste or redundancy.

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 input schema, presence of an output schema, and a sibling ecosystem of memory-related tools, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, trigger conditions, backend behavior, and data privacy. It does not explain return values, but the output schema satisfies that need.

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?

The input schema has 100% descriptive coverage, with each of the six parameters explained in detail. The description complements this by noting that the backend auto-generates titles and tags, which reinforces the optionality of those parameters and adds context about the 'private wiki' environment.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Store a chunk of context in the user's private memory wiki'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like recall and list_memories by framing it as the creation/write operation. The mention of automatic processing and privacy further narrows its scope.

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 provides explicit triggers ('whenever the user says "remember this", "memorize this"') and semantic contexts (sharing a decision, preference, or insight). It also hints at an exclusion by noting memories are private, suggesting this is not for public content, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools.

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