episode_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: required params, conditional requirement for DECISION, and the effect of the 'sensitive' flag. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the core behavioral constraints are well covered.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, then lists required fields, important conditional notes, and optional fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains all parameters and constraints. It covers required, conditional, and optional fields, making the tool easy to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'entities' are related file/symbol names, 'outcome' values are success/failure/partial, and 'sensitive' excludes from default recalls. This adds value for the agent.

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 action: 'Persist a structured episode in long-term agent memory.' It specifies the required parameters (type and content) and optional ones, effectively distinguishing from its sibling tool 'episode_recall' which is for reading.

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 explicitly states required fields and when to use the tool. It provides critical guidance for the DECISION type, noting that metadata is required and omitting it returns an error. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning when not to use (e.g., if reading is intended), but the contrast with 'episode_recall' is implied.

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