agent_memory_set

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

With no annotations, the description does a good job disclosing key behaviors: persistence across sessions, encryption, support for multiple value types (string, json, number, boolean), and optional TTL. However, it omits details like size limits, overwrite behavior, or exact TTL units (though schema covers TTL in seconds).

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 very concise: three sentences, each adding unique value. It front-loads the main action and quickly covers key features (persistence, encryption, types, TTL) without unnecessary words.

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 description covers the core purpose and key features, but lacks details on return value (though no output schema exists), failure modes, or authentication requirements beyond mentioning 'api_key'. For a set operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond stating support for types and optional TTL; it does not provide additional meaning for api_key, namespace, key, or value beyond what the schema already documents.

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 purpose: 'Store a value in your agent's persistent encrypted memory.' It specifies the verb 'store' and the resource 'memory', and distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_memory_get, agent_memory_delete, etc., which handle different operations.

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 basic context (persistent across sessions, supports types, optional TTL) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or conflicts.

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