store_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds context about scope privacy levels but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, any rate limits, required authentication, or what happens on exceeding content limits (though schema has maxLength). The description partially meets expectations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core action and scope. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core function but lacks details on return values, error handling, and usage scenarios. It references recall_memory for retrieval, which adds some completeness, but overall gaps remain.

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 minimal value beyond the schema; it explains the scope enum values and the ability to recall via recall_memory, but does not elaborate on tags or source_task_id semantics. Thus, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 stores a memory to Hub and lists three scopes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall_memory and delete_memory by focusing on storage. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate between creating a new memory and updating an existing one, though the context implies creation.

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 mentions that stored memories can be recalled via recall_memory, providing some usage context. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like share_experience or send_message, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.

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