telys_add

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing non‑idempotency ('NOT idempotent... a repeat call inserts additional new rows'), failure conditions, auto-creation behavior, and the routing role of the `scope` field. It also specifies that texts are embedded on-device and persisted. No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint=false aligns with the explicit claim.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core action is front-loaded, required/optional parameters are clearly separated, and key behavioral warnings (non-idempotency, failure conditions) are explicitly called out. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: required and optional inputs, failure modes, auto-creation behavior, and the relationship to the upsert alternative. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, but the description adds substantial semantic value: it explains positional correspondence for ids and metadata, auto-generation when ids are omitted, conflict behavior for existing ids, and the use of `scope` for partition routing and later where-filtering. This goes well beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Add text documents') and a clear resource ('Telys memory collection'), and explains the operation's mechanics (embedded on-device, inserted as row, persisted). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping its role to storing new memories and by pointing to telys_upsert for replacement, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 states clearly when to use it ('Use to store new memories') and gives an explicit alternative condition ('an id that already exists raises a conflict, so use telys_upsert to replace'). It also covers failure cases (empty texts, length mismatch, duplicate ids) and notes auto-creation of the collection, which removes the need for telys_create_collection in this flow.

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