cortex_memory_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ("versioned brick") and the tenant-scoping constraint, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens on conflicting writes for a mutation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the return value and key constraint. No filler; every clause 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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and a scoping rule. It omits mutation-specific behavior (permissions, idempotency, error cases) that an agent would want before writing memory.

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 every parameter (apiKey, domain, userId, message, sessionId) is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the userId scoping requirement, adding little beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Store one user memory in Cortex") and clarifies single-item scope with "one." It does not name the obvious sibling cortex_memory_search as the read counterpart, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"Scope every call to the end user's id" gives a concrete usage constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to cortex_memory_search vs cortex_turn. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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