memory_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions persistence but does not state whether this is a create or update operation, if it overwrites existing entries, or what idempotency guarantees exist. For a tool that stores data, these details are critical.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It effectively conveys the core action, but could benefit from a second sentence to cover usage guidance or behavioral notes without being overly verbose.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify what the tool returns, how conflicts are handled, or how 'importance' is interpreted. The sibling tools suggest a rich system, but this description lacks enough detail for an agent to use it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions content, summary, importance, area, and module but adds no extra context (e.g., format, constraints, or relationships). The 'metadata' and 'importance' parameters lack any semantic explanation beyond what the schema provides.

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 it persists a memory entry and lists the key fields (content, condensed summary, importance, area/module). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like memory_search and memory_get, but could be more explicit about its unique role among the sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like memory_summarize_session or memory_manifest. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into the workflow.

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