Agent Memory Bridge

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'one' entry (excluding bulk) and hints at two entry types (memory/signal), but fails to disclose critical mutation behaviors: overwrite logic, durability guarantees, idempotency, or error conditions.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no redundancy. However, given the high complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage), this brevity becomes under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Inadequate for a 9-parameter mutation tool. Despite having an output schema (excusing return value documentation), the description lacks domain context ('bridge' undefined), parameter guidance, and behavioral constraints necessary for safe invocation.

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%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. It fails to do so: no explanation of the 7 optional parameters (tags, session_id, actor, etc.), valid values for 'kind' (only implied as memory/signal), or namespace scoping rules.

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 provides a clear verb ('Store') and resource ('shared memory or signal entry'), and specifies scope ('one', 'in the bridge'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'recall' through the opposing verb.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'recall' or other alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or use-case scenarios.

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