agentbay_memory_store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a mutating yet non-destructive operation. The description adds the key behavior of being fully offline and the sync/registration consideration. It does not disclose any side effects like overwriting existing entries, limits on size, or behavior on conflicts. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, credit is given for the offline and registration context, but there is still missing depth (e.g., does it overwrite by title? What happens on duplicate?).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clear call-to-action for the upgrade. Each sentence serves a purpose (store functionality + offline, then sign-up). The sign-up link is an external marketing element but is relevant to feature activation. No fluff. Slightly promotional tone, but it's efficient.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description leaves a lot to inference. The agent knows to store a memory but not how to structure content, what fields are expected or optional, or how the stored entry will be used later. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify return behavior (e.g., success message, the created entry). The offline and sync context is helpful, but for a complex write operation, more operational details (e.g., if it requires title uniqueness, how tags interact with recall) would be valuable. It's complete for the basic use case but not for advanced parameter usage.

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 carries no parameter details. The schema itself defines 11 parameters with enums for type and tier, and most parameters are self-explanatory from their names. However, the description does not provide any guidance on how to use the parameters (e.g., when to set confidence, what ttlHours means, how aliases help recall). Baseline for low coverage is that description must compensate, but it doesn't. Since the schema properties are somewhat clear and there are 3 required params (title, content, type), a 3 is fair: it's not misleading but adds no extra meaning 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 states a clear verb ('Store a memory entry') and resource ('your local AgentBay brain'), and mentions offline operation. It distinguishes itself from memory recall/forget/verify etc. by focusing on the storage action. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling tool for comparison or state what makes it different from other memory tools (though the verb 'store' alone is fairly differentiating). Short but clear.

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?

It tells the user it works fully offline and mentions sign-up for sync, vector search, and team features. This gives context on when to use it (when offline storage is needed) and hints at an upgrade path. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other memory tools like recall or forget, but the intent is fairly obvious. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are given, so it's adequate but not excellent.

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