Store a new memory

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

Annotations are minimal (title only), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'stores in the database', implying a write operation, but does not disclose authorization needs, side effects, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. Compared to the calibration example for 'update_drive' (score 2), this is similar in lacking transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks any structural organization, such as separating purpose from usage notes, which could improve scannability.

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 that there are three required parameters and the tool is a write operation, the description is incomplete. It does not provide any guidance on scope naming conventions, content length limits, or example usage. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation is not needed, but the lack of behavioral and usage context leaves gaps for the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a vague mention of 'using the provided scope' without elaborating on the 'scope' parameter's role. It does not clarify the 'source' parameter's purpose or format beyond the schema. Thus, it adds marginal value beyond the structured parameter 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 clearly states the tool stores a new memory in the database using the provided scope. It uses a specific verb ('stores') and resource ('memory'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'forget', 'recall', or 'update', which could cause confusion over which tool to use for memory operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify that one should use 'update' for modifying existing memories or 'forget' for removal. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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