lithtrix_memory_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the API key requirement, HTTP method (PUT), and optional parameters. It implies upsert semantics ('store or update'). However, it does not state idempotency or response details, which are acceptable for a simple set operation.

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 action and resource. No unnecessary words. Efficient and direct.

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 lacks mention of return values or expected response (no output schema). While the tool is simple, the agent is left uninformed about what happens after setting. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 lists optional parameters (ttl, importance, source, confidence) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's already good descriptions. No value is added over the input schema.

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 verb ('store or update') and resource ('memory key'), with HTTP method and endpoint. This differentiates it from sibling read/search tools like lithtrix_memory_get and lithtrix_memory_search.

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 provides clear context for when to use (store/update memory) and states a prerequisite (API key). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, though the sibling tools imply read/search roles.

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