agent.memory.put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses the ≤64 KiB value limit and optional TTL, but does not cover write semantics (e.g., atomicity, error conditions) or authentication details beyond the namespace.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded main action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, key format, value size, TTL, but does not mention return value or error handling. For a write operation with no output schema, this is acceptable but could be more complete.

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?

The description adds the ≤64 KiB constraint for the value parameter and clarifies 'Optional TTL' for ttlSeconds, which supplements the schema. For key and value, schema already provides descriptions, so marginal addition.

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 'Write/replace a memory entry in the calling agent's private KV store,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent.memory.get, delete, and list.

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 mentions the namespace but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage through contrast with sibling names but lacks direct alternatives or exclusions.

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