add_memory

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It explains the tool stores data for recall but omits details on idempotency, overwriting behavior, limits, or side effects. A write operation would benefit from more behavioral context.

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, with a clear purpose statement and a separate Args section. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the structure is logical.

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 simplicity (1 required param, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers purpose and parameter. However, it could expand on what the output contains or any storage constraints, though these may be addressed by the output schema.

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?

The only parameter 'text' lacks schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates with an illustrative example ('Justin prefers TypeScript...'), adding semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Store a new memory for future recall' and lists specific use cases (facts, preferences, decisions), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like delete_memory or list_memories.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('to remember important facts, user preferences...'), but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., search_memories for retrieval).

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