trawl_memory_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a write operation. 'Semantic search capability' hints that stored content is indexed/embedded, but it says nothing about what happens on a duplicate key (overwrite vs. error), durability, indexing latency, or what is returned after a store.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity partly reflects missing information rather than disciplined editing.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with a nested metadata object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. Key-collision behavior, indexing side effects, and post-store state are all unaddressed and must be inferred by 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 all six parameters including ttl, namespace default, and pool_name scope are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb 'Store' plus the resource 'memory/note' make the operation clear and distinct from siblings like trawl_memory_search and trawl_memory_list. It never explicitly names an alternative or states the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus trawl_memory_search, trawl_memory_list, or the overlapping mullet_remember sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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