memory_archive_upsert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses upsert/dedup behavior and the key limitation 'Does not embed file bytes.' However, it does not clarify whether an update overwrites existing fields, what happens to omitted fields, or any auth/concurrency considerations, so disclosure is only partial.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: upsert semantics, text-only scope with alternatives, and the file-bytes limitation.

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 tool has 12 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, so the description needs to do substantial work. It gives a solid high-level orientation but leaves most input-field semantics and required-value expectations unexplained. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the input-side gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'title + project' as the dedup key and restricts content to L0/L1/L2 text fields, but it does not explain required fields like solution_doc or most optional parameters. Referencing the same contract as POST is useful, but not self-contained.

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 names a specific action ('Create or update an archive'), identifies the resource, and gives the dedup key ('title + project'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being explicitly archive-focused and by referencing the POST /api/v1/archives contract.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('L0/L1/L2 text fields only') and gives direct alternatives for large files via the attachments upload endpoint or CLI after archive_id is available. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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