create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical non-obvious behavior of refusing overwrites and specifies default values for priority, tags, and source. However, it does not mention what happens on success or error, leaving a small gap.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, noting constraints/alternatives, and listing defaults. There is no redundant or vague wording, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose, usage constraints, key behavior, and defaults. It could detail the success response or auth requirements, but for a create tool that refuses duplicates, it is largely complete.

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?

The schema already covers all 7 parameters (100% coverage), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that namespace and uri must be exact, and by providing defaults for priority, tags, and source that go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'URI-only memory', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'update' tool by explicitly saying 'use update to modify an existing memory'.

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?

It provides an explicit exclusion: 'Refuses overwrite when uri already exists', and recommends the alternative tool 'update' for modifying existing memories. It also states the prerequisite of exact namespace and uri, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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