telys_add

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and idempotent=false, but the description adds meaningful context: on-device embedding, auto-creation with partition_by='scope', persistence, and the precise reason it is not idempotent (fresh ids per call). No contradiction with annotations.

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 primary action is front-loaded, and each subsequent clause adds operational value: required versus optional parameters, failure modes, and non-idempotency. Though dense, there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Covers invocation requirements, parameter semantics, error conditions, and the non-idempotent behavior that would otherwise surprise an agent. The lack of an output schema is not a material gap for an insertion tool whose selection and invocation criteria are fully described.

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 fully compensates by explaining collection and texts as required, ids as auto-generated and conflict-prone, and metadata as per-text objects with scope routing. It also clarifies the one-per-text relationship between array parameters, which the bare schema cannot convey.

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?

Opens with 'Add text documents to a Telys memory collection', giving a direct verb and resource, and explains the outcome (embedded, inserted, persisted). It explicitly contrasts with telys_upsert for replacement, so an agent can distinguish add from sibling tools without opening other definitions.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to store new memories' and gives a concrete alternative: 'use telys_upsert to replace' when an id already exists. It also lists failure conditions (empty texts, length mismatch, duplicate ids), which helps an agent avoid invalid calls.

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