Store a memory

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

Annotations only say the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: memories persist beyond the conversation, routing is automatic with concrete mapping (statement→fact, event→episode, instructions→procedure), and the tool returns an id. It does not mention potential side effects like duplicate creation, but overall it adds solid value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the routing behavior is summarized efficiently, and the return value is stated at the end. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, routing, and return value well. It does not spell out that `steps` is required for `type=procedure`, but the schema already handles that. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 value by explaining the automatic routing semantics and instructing to set `type` only to override, which is not fully captured by the schema. It does not elaborate on `steps` or `outcome`, but those are already described in the schema.

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 operation: 'Write something into long-term memory so it survives this conversation.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling names (consolidate, recall, health) make the distinction obvious without further explanation.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for persisting memories, with automatic routing and an override via `type`. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of recall for retrieval' or offer when-not-to-use guidance, which keeps it from a 5.

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