append_memory_note

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the important context of persistence ('future session') and the constraint of brevity. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context beyond the raw flags.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and how to format the note.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and complete schema coverage, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, usage trigger, and content constraints. No output schema is needed, and the description covers the essential context.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear param description. The tool description adds the specific guideline of '1-3 sentences', which goes beyond the schema's 'be concise' and provides additional semantic meaning for the note parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('persistent memory file'), and distinguishes from sibling read_memory by focusing on writing. It also defines the type of content (concise notes, key facts).

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user shares a preference, important system fact, or decision'). It does not mention alternatives, but no obvious alternative exists for writing memory besides this tool. Slight deduction for not stating when not to use.

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