record_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that linked paths are validated at HEAD and that global scope memories have special constraints. It also mentions the absence of inline evidence and directs to attach_evidence. This provides good behavioral insight despite not covering all aspects like authentication or rate limits.

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 paragraph without unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose but could be better organized (e.g., bullet points for readability).

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview but does not document all parameters or specify the return value, leaving the agent without full information to use the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains paths, scope, assumptions, and their constraints, but omits type, confidence, lesson_from, and why_it_matters. This partial coverage adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 explicitly states that the tool creates memories and is the only way new memories enter the store, clearly distinguishing it from sibling read tools like retrieve_context and search_memory.

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 indicates that this is the sole creation method, and it advises using attach_evidence for inline evidence. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond that.

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