memory_add_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a mutating action and that summarization is deferred, but does not mention buffer limits, persistence, whether older messages are evicted, auth requirements, or what the tool returns. For a write operation with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single concise sentence that fronts the key verb and object, with a useful purpose clause. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 relatively simple tool, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient for basic invocation: an agent can see required fields and a role enum. However, missing usage guidance, behavioral consequences, and return value leave the definition only partially complete.

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 needed to compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain agent_id, role, or content. The schema's enum and property names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the word 'message.'

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 uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('message to the memory buffer'), and clarifies the purpose ('for later summarization'). This is clear enough to distinguish the action from memory_load or memory_get_context, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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?

'For later summarization' implies this tool is for accumulating messages that will be summarized later, which gives some usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over memory_save, memory_apply_summary, or a direct summarization path, nor does it give any exclusion conditions.

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