memory_create_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool creates a named set of default rules/memories that are reusable. However, it does not disclose behavior on duplicate names, whether it modifies existing templates, or any side effects. Basic transparency but missing important details.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 there is an output schema, return value explanation is not needed. However, with 2 parameters and 1 required, the description does not address behavior on duplicate template names or any prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple creation tool but could add context about conflict handling.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only hints at the 'name' parameter (as a named set) but completely omits the optional 'description' parameter. It adds no value beyond the schema for either parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('reusable template'), and clearly explains what a template is ('named set of default rules/memories') and its use case ('applied when creating new projects so they need not be re-typed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list_templates or memory_apply_template.

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 the tool should be used to create a template for new projects, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like memory_add_template_rule or memory_apply_template. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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