memory_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds two useful features: unlimited size and semantic search capability, which give some context. However, it does not mention side effects, durability, return values, or permission requirements, leaving gaps for a write 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word contributes value. It is concise and well-structured, lacking any redundant 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 simple storage tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and features. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and any behavioral details like success feedback or side effects, making it minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by aligning with the enum types (spec, commit, learning), but it does not explain parameter syntax or provide additional semantics beyond the 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 tool's purpose: storing content into Archival Memory. It specifies the types of content (spec, commit, learning records) and highlights distinctive features (no size limit, semantic search), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like recall, update, search, and status.

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 usage for archiving content by listing the content types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or any exclusions, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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