agentbay_agent_memory_record

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions dedup behavior (source+sourceRef) and ownership but does not disclose update vs. error on conflicts, response format, or idempotency. The known behavioral traits are limited to the dedup mechanism.

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 extremely concise with three short, impactful statements. Each sentence adds distinct value: action+ownership, persistence scope, and dedup mechanism. No superfluous text.

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?

Missing output schema and no description of return value leaves agents uncertain about results. Optional parameters (tags, filePaths, confidence) are not explained. With 8 parameters and many siblings, more guidance on parameter usage and return structure would improve completeness.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning to 'source' and 'sourceRef' by explicitly linking them to dedup. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters (tags, filePaths, confidence, type enum), leaving their purpose ambiguous despite schema descriptions for some.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'memory entry', specifying that it belongs to the calling agent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agentbay_agent_memory_query (querying) and agentbay_agent_memory_sync (syncing) by emphasizing ownership and dedup behavior.

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 context that agent memory follows across projects and uses source+sourceRef for dedup, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, missing comparative guidance against siblings like agentbay_knowledge_record.

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