add_memory

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 a key behavioral trait: the requirement for at least one identifier (user_id, agent_id, or run_id). However, it lacks details on other important behaviors such as whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Store'), potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The description adds some value but is incomplete for behavioral transparency.

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—just two sentences—with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with a critical requirement. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without 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 (8 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and a key requirement, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like mutation effects or error handling. With no annotations, it could be more comprehensive, but it meets basic needs for a storage tool.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions the identifier requirement but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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') and resource ('new preference, fact, or conversation snippet'), specifying what type of content can be stored. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_memory, get_memories, and update_memory by focusing on creation rather than retrieval, modification, or deletion.

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 this tool: to store new memory content. It explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires at least one: user_id, agent_id, or run_id'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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