memory_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the operation is an append (non-destructive), durable, and rejects credentials. It lacks return-value or failure-mode details, but these core behavioral traits are useful and go beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by a relevant content policy. Every clause adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a clear purpose and category list but omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and any indication of return behavior. It is minimally sufficient but leaves significant gaps.

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%, and the description only repeats the category enum already present in the schema. It provides no additional explanation for the required title/content fields or the optional tags, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 appends durable memory and enumerates supported categories (user, decision, project, knowledge, inbox), making the action and resource explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search, memory_get, and memory_update by its verb 'append' and content scope.

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 use for capturing new memory by listing acceptable categories and a content policy, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over memory_update or other siblings. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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