memorize_asset

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It specifies content formatting rules and deprecation of certain fields, but does not elaborate on behavior on duplicates or success indicators.

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?

Two sentences: first defines core purpose, second gives critical usage instructions. No redundant words; every sentence 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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, bug fix conventions, cross-repo handling. With 12 parameters (3 required), schema covers the rest. Lacks return value info but no output schema expected. Fairly complete 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 has 100% parameter description coverage, baseline 3. Description adds value by specifying type='bugfix' for bug fixes, structured content requirements, and deprecation of source_project/source_path, going 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?

Description clearly states the tool stores retrievable assets into a shared memory bank, with specific verb '沉淀' (precipitate) and resource '资产' (assets). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_memory_asset, read_memory_asset, and update_memory_asset.

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?

Provides explicit guidelines for bug fix assets (type=bugfix, structured content) and cross-repo sharing (omit source_project/source_path, include path in content). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use vs alternatives, but the context is clear.

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