create_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'with vector embedding' as a useful detail but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, return values, or limitations. It leaves the tool's operational behavior largely unexplained.

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 concise sentence with no waste. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing important context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 for efficiency with some loss of 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?

The description is very short and omits essential context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what a memory entry is, what the vector embedding is for, what the tool returns, or any required inputs beyond what the schema shows. This is inadequate for effective use.

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 60%, which is moderate, but the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify ambiguous parameters like 'tags' or 'memory_type', and with moderate coverage the description should compensate more than it does.

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+resource ('Create a new memory entry') and is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like search_memories, get_memory, update_memory, and delete_memory. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 implies usage (for creating memories) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling context makes the intended use clear, but there is no explicit guidance.

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