store_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It explains that the tool saves to a persistent memory store and introduces buckets as organizational folders. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as duplicate saves, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, or what the response/return value looks like. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it opens with a one-sentence purpose, includes a clearly labeled 'WHEN TO USE' section with actionable guidance, and ends with a brief explanation of buckets. Every sentence adds useful context, with no filler or 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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, why to use it, and the key concept of buckets. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, or behavior when a bucketId is invalid, but for a basic save operation it is reasonably complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that buckets are 'organizational folders' with examples, and by advising the agent to ask the user which bucket to use when unclear. This gives additional semantic guidance for the optional bucketId parameter beyond the schema's simple 'Optional bucket ID to store the memory in.'

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Save information to the user's MemoryPlugin account.' It clearly distinguishes this as a write operation compared to sibling tools like search_memories or list_buckets. The MemoryPlugin context and the 'WHEN TO USE' section further clarify its purpose of building persistent memory.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit context: 'Proactively save anything that might be useful for future context' and 'Err on the side of saving.' It also advises asking the user which bucket to use when unclear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for retrieval, so it stops short of a full 5.

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