memory_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the detail that content is indexed automatically, which is helpful, but it does not mention what happens on overwrite, whether permissions are needed, or any side effects beyond storing.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence that front-loads the main action. It avoids unnecessary words and repetition of schema information, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a fully described schema, the description is minimally viable. It covers the core action and mentions indexing, but lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral details, making it incomplete for a standalone tool with no annotations.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters (key as 'File path to store at' and content as 'Content to store'), covering 100% of parameter meaning. The description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with specific action verbs: 'Store content to memory and index it.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_search and memory_get, which are retrieval-focused, by emphasizing the write and indexing behavior.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning related tools like memory_search for retrieval or conditions for using this tool.

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