memory_store

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important write behavior: persistence, return of id/revision, exact-duplicate suppression, atomic closing of the superseded memory's validity, and scope/scope_id matching requirements. There is no contradiction with the 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 description is front-loaded with the core action and return value, and every subsequent sentence adds a policy, constraint, or behavioral detail. There is no filler or repetition.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context: preconditions for autonomous writes, prohibited content, search-first requirement, deduplication behavior, and atomic supersede mechanics. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by adding meaning to source.trigger, supersedes, valid_from, scope, and scope_id. However, it leaves fields like valid_to, confidence, importance, tags, and type to inference or schema defaults/enums, so compensation is strong but not complete.

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 ('Store') and resource ('durable memory with provenance'), and commits to a clear return contract ('Return id and revision'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like memory_search and memory_update by describing duplicate suppression and supersede behavior.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: explicit user requests must be handled, and autonomous writes require confirmed, durable, future-useful information. It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance by prohibiting secrets, speculation, raw logs, and short-lived details, and instructs the agent to search first and avoid re-inserting duplicates.

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