memory_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: asynchronous processing, non-verbatim storage, searchability delay, and the absence of the stored memory's ID in the response. It also implicitly warns about the processing pipeline, exceeding expectations for transparency.

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 efficiently front-loaded with the core action and expands into necessary behavioral disclosures and usage guidance. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, async behavior, appropriate content, exclusions, and ID caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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 annotations and output schema, the description carries the full contextual burden and does so admirably: it explains the async processing, searchability delay, appropriate content, exclusions, and the response limitation regarding IDs. The schema covers parameters comprehensively, so no additional parameter context is needed.

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 schema already documents all parameters with specific examples and guidance. The description adds only tangential context (async processing) that affects content meaning but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Store') and resource ('a new memory'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling memory tools (get/delete/search/update) by focusing on creation. It also clarifies the async behavior and non-verbatim storage, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage criteria with concrete examples of appropriate content (user preferences, project conventions, important decisions) and explicit exclusions (trivial/transient info). It also directs users to memory_search for subsequent updates/deletes, clearly demarcating when not 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.