goclaw_memory_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Store a new memory document' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing documents, requires specific permissions, returns an ID or confirmation, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool (implied by 'Store') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens on success/failure, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that creates persistent data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (agent_id, path, content). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a 'memory document' is, how 'path' is structured, or constraints on 'content'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Store') and the resource ('a new memory document for an agent'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like goclaw_memory_get or goclaw_memory_delete by specifying it's for creation/storage, not retrieval or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools like goclaw_agent_create, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., agent must exist), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like goclaw_agent_files_set. Without any usage context, the agent must infer from the name and schema alone.

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