memory_store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: 'Never overwrites' clarifies the mutation semantics, and 'Returns memory_id' fills in a return value that has no output schema. It doesn't cover anything like rate limits, dedup, or size limits on the note, which leaves a modest 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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence carries distinct information: what it stores, how it's retrieved, what it returns, and where the sibling use case goes. No 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?

For a two-parameter, single-purpose write tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers storage semantics, retrieval path, return value, and alternative routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both content and tags are already documented in the schema, including the comma-separated-string fallback. The description adds only the framing that content is a single plain-text note; it says nothing about tags. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save one free-text note to your own memory') and pins down scope: one note, one entry, own memory. It explicitly names sibling interactions (memory_search finds it, user_profile_record for preferences), so the agent can distinguish it from neighboring tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives: use this for free-text notes, and route per-user preferences to user_profile_record instead. It also explains the downstream payoff (memory_search and prompt injection), which tells the agent why to store at all.

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