memoryos_add_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: messages are queued for extraction rather than directly stored, and it mentions schema selection. However, it does not explain idempotency behavior, required permissions, whether a job is created, or what happens after queueing.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds useful context about schema usage. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin for reliable invocation. It omits the meaning of required parameters, the expected message format, asynchronous job behavior, and what the caller should expect in response.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. It vaguely implies the 'messages' parameter and tenant scoping, but does not clarify external_user_id, idempotency_key, agent_id, metadata, or the message object shape. An agent would have to guess at several parameter semantics.

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 ('Queue') and a clear resource ('tenant-scoped conversation messages for MemoryOS extraction'). The phrase 'tenant-scoped' also distinguishes this from the sibling universal_add_memory tool, so an agent can tell what it is for.

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 when to use the tool by calling out tenant scoping and the workspace's configured schema, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. Usage context is present, but exclusions and trade-offs versus universal_add_memory are left to inference.

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