add_memory

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not readOnly (writing) and not destructive (additive). The description reinforces that it stores 'NEW' information, implying no modification or deletion. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., confirmation, idempotency) are mentioned, but given annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a clear action guide. Every word adds value, and the most critical information ('Store NEW information') is front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no nested objects, and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and an example. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention expected output briefly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing parameters (content, category, tags) and providing a concrete example ('content='User prefers dark mode', category='preference', tags=['ui']'). This clarifies usage beyond parameter names.

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 NEW information' and provides examples of usage (preferences, decisions, facts). This concise verb+resource definition effectively distinguishes it from siblings like update_memory and delete_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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use for preferences, decisions, facts' and provides a when-to-use guide with example. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_memory, leaving some ambiguity for agents to infer the exact boundaries.

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