push_openclaw_memory

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

The description discloses that the operation has an external side effect, is best-effort, and depends on integration configuration. However, with no annotations at all, it leaves unspecified what happens if the integration is missing, whether the push can overwrite previous memory, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 stays compact at three sentences. 'Short Hub digest' and 'compact Hub-generated digest' are slightly redundant, but the overall structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, so return-value documentation is not necessary. The description covers the operation's purpose, content type, prerequisite integration, side effect, and parameter roles. The main remaining gap is failure behavior when the integration is not configured.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0% and no annotations exist, the description carries the burden of explaining the two parameters. It does so by saying project_slug narrows the digest and note adds short context, which adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. It could specify accepted formats or requiredness more explicitly, but the semantic roles are clear.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('push'), a target ('configured OpenClaw memory'), and a content constraint ('short Hub digest'). It also explicitly rules out raw chats, which helps distinguish it from potential sibling tools like session_digest or memory-write 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?

The description gives clear context: this is for compact Hub-generated digests, not raw chats, and it requires the operator's OpenClaw integration to be configured. It does not name specific alternatives or articulate explicit when-not-to-use cases beyond raw chats, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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