memory_write

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

The description explains that 'an importance gate may filter low-value writes, so the result tells you whether the memory was stored or filtered,' which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations only indicate openWorldHint, but the description clarifies the filtering behavior.

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 a single paragraph that packs essential information without wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides usage guidelines and behavioral notes. While concise, it could be slightly shorter by combining some sentences, but it remains efficient.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations with openWorldHint. The description covers return behavior (result indicating stored/filtered), proactive usage, and parameter context. However, it omits details about error conditions or the exact output structure, so it is nearly but not fully 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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'self-contained' requirement for content with explicit examples, and it provides high-level context for concepts and domain (e.g., 'namespace to organize memories'). This adds moderate value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Store a long-term memory that persists across sessions AND across every AI tool', specifying the verb (store) and resource (long-term memory). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_read, memory_delete, etc., all of which have different functions.

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 explicitly says 'Call this PROACTIVELY the moment the user states a preference, makes a decision, or you learn a durable fact... Don't wait to be asked.' It also includes a clear exclusion: 'Do NOT use it for transient chatter, secrets, or anything only relevant to the current turn.'

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