memory_add

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

Annotations already declare write semantics, non-open-world, and idempotence; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by stating the authorization model and that exact normalized active duplicates return the existing ID without altering evidence. That duplicate-handling nuance goes beyond the bare idempotentHint and is exactly what an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and constraints following in order of importance; no filler. Slightly dense phrasing but every sentence carries information.

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?

Covers the essential write/auth behavioral profile and duplicate semantics, which is the most important gap to close given annotations only partially cover behavior. Still leaves the parameter contract largely unexplained with no output schema to fall back on, so an agent cannot fully infer how to construct 'evidence' or what 'reason' is for.

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 four parameters are undocumented in the schema, yet the description only clarifies that evidence is required and implies the project/global scope split. It says nothing about 'text', 'reason', or the array shape/limits of evidence, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save a concise reusable memory') plus the evidence requirement, which is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like memory_search and memory_get. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., memory_supersede) for cases where an existing memory should be replaced, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives real prerequisites ('requires launch-authorized writes; global writes need separate permission') and hints at dedup behavior, which is useful context for choosing this tool. But it never says when to use memory_add versus memory_supersede or memory_archive, so routing guidance is only implied.

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