create_passage

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

Annotations provide only a title ('Create Archival Memory'), which doesn't cover behavioral traits. The description adds value by indicating this is for insertion into archival memory, but it doesn't disclose details like authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond the basic operation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured, making every sentence earn 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters), annotations are minimal, but the description covers purpose and usage well. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, which could be useful for a mutation 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'include_embeddings' or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('Insert a memory') and resource ('archival memory store'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_passages, modify_passage, and delete_passage mentioned in the same sentence. It precisely communicates the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly provides usage context by naming alternatives: 'Use list_passages to view existing memories, modify_passage to edit, or delete_passage to remove.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others for related operations.

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