記憶寫入

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the tool mutates memory ('新增或更新') and implies upsert via name uniqueness, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap for a write tool.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional constraints (uniqueness, keyword purpose, content norms) are presented efficiently in a structured order.

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 simple write tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and basic usage. However, it omits any mention of return value, error conditions, or explicit upsert behavior (though name uniqueness implies it). It is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'keywords' ('供日後檢索觸發') and gives content quality norms, but these are minor additions beyond what the schema already states. It does not explain name or content format beyond minimal requirements.

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 verb and resource: '新增或更新長期記憶' (add or update long-term memory). It also specifies the name uniqueness constraint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_forget, though the write nature makes it obvious.

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 implies when to use it (for writing memory) and gives content style guidance, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of 'use memory_search to retrieve' or 'use memory_forget to delete' is present.

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