add_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that execution is async and returns immediately, and mentions 'intelligent caching', but omits details like side effects, error handling, or idempotency. This provides some insight but is incomplete for a creation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the key behavior immediately. It is concise and efficient, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, error scenarios, caching behavior, or the effect of priority and skip_duplicate_check. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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 description coverage is high (86%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only hinting at async behavior and caching. It does not elaborate on parameter interactions or provide context beyond what the input schema already offers.

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: 'Add memory' with async processing and intelligent caching. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('memory'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search or delete by highlighting background processing.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_memories or deduplicate_memories. It mentions async and caching but does not explain conditions where sync processing is better or when not to use this tool.

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