store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does disclose two behaviors: encryption and the need for write capability. However, it omits other crucial behaviors such as whether storing overwrites existing memories, how memory_id is used, or return value expectations, leaving notable gaps.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary purpose.

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 tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It fails to mention behavior on existing memory_id, the meaning of metadata or event_timestamp, or any return value details. The lack of annotations further reduces context, leaving the description incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the five parameters. While parameter names (e.g., content, metadata) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify semantics like the role of memory_id, event_timestamp, or source. It does not compensate for the low coverage at all.

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's function: encrypting and storing a memory. The verb 'store' is specific, and 'memory' identifies the resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (retrieve, search, forget) which handle reading and deletion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra note, 'requires the write capability,' is a permission prerequisite, not usage context. There are no explicit statements about when to choose this over retrieve, search, or forget.

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