work_record_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the memory is provenance-bearing and that raw model prose is not trusted, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, persistence semantics, whether existing memories are superseded, or any failure modes.

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 sentence with no fluff, and the core intent is front-loaded. However, it is too sparse to be 'appropriately sized' for a tool with four parameters and nested object input, so it earns only a middle score.

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 four parameters, a required nested object, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, this description is far from sufficient. An agent cannot reliably construct the memory payload or understand the roles of now_ms, project, and superseded_ids from the provided text.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what should go inside the 'memory' object, how 'now_ms' should be set, what 'project' represents, or how 'superseded_ids' behaves. The tool name and schema property names carry the only semantic weight.

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 specific verb ('attach') with a clear resource ('memory') and a distinctive qualifier ('provenance-bearing'), so an agent can tell this is about persisting memory with provenance metadata. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'remember_fragment' or 'vault_write_belief', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'without trusting raw model prose' implies a preference for provenance-aware memory, but it does not state concrete conditions for selecting this tool over similar memory-writing siblings.

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