add_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/no-overwrite profile is partly given. The description adds real value by warning that corrections must not be re-added (consistent with idempotentHint=false) and by scoping storage to short, durable text with valid_until for transient content.

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?

Three short imperative sentences with zero filler, and the routing constraint is front-loaded after the core purpose. Every clause carries usable information.

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 four-parameter write tool with no output schema but full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, the main routing hazard, and one parameter. The gaps are namespace semantics and any hint of what is returned after storing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It partially does: it names the four valid kinds (matching the enum), implies the content format ('1-2 sentences'), and explains valid_until's purpose, but never mentions the namespace parameter or its naming pattern.

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?

Specific verb (store) plus resource (durable fact/preference/decision/plan), with the accepted content kinds enumerated. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_memory, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Contains all three elements: when to use (durable facts, preferences, decisions, plans), when not to (never re-add a correction), and the named alternative (update_memory). It also adds a conditional routing rule for transient facts via valid_until.

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