store_turn

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool persists to long-term memory and curates for a clean graph. It doesn't cover side effects or error behavior, but the core behavior is well explained. A minor gap is lack of confirmation or return information.

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 concise and well-structured, using bullet-like formatting and front-loading critical information. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, when to call, data quality guidelines, and the alternative. No wasted 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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context for using the tool effectively. It covers the main use case and data quality rules. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a memory persistence 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 82%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema by specifying constraints: topic 3-5 words, keywords as concept nouns, links typed edges with rules. It also explains 'episode' as a fact sentence. Some parameters like tags and entities are not elaborated in description but schema covers them.

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's purpose: persist new information into long-term memory after a substantive turn. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'auto' by emphasizing it's the preferred, cleaner saving method. The verb 'persist' and resource 'long-term memory' are specific.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to call ('after replying', 'after a substantive turn') and when to skip (trivial turns). It also advises against using 'auto' as an alternative. Additionally, it provides data quality rules for topic, keywords, and links, making usage very clear.

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