Delimit Memory Store

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral depth: it writes via backends.memory_bridge.store, has no license gate on the Free tier, and explains that hot_load=True projects into the MEMORY.md hot-load index on next sync. No contradiction with annotations; a small gap is the lack of detail on idempotency or overwrite behavior, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary — the side-effects section repeats that a memory entry is written — but every section earns its place and the organization helps an agent scan quickly.

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 four-parameter write tool, the description covers when to use it, when not to use it, how it differs from siblings, its side effects, and the hot_load behavior. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is unnecessary. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents content, tags, context, and hot_load. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the real-world consequence of hot_load=True (projection into the Claude Code MEMORY.md hot-load index), which is more informative than the schema's phrasing. It could also elaborate on tags/context semantics, but those are already adequately covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store a memory entry for future cross-session retrieval.' It then explicitly contrasts with sibling tools: delimit_memory_search retrieves, delimit_memory_recent reads the tail, and this one writes. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 an explicit 'When to use' section tied to the orchestrator's memory rules and specific content types, plus a 'When NOT to use' section with a named alternative (delimit_context_write for venture-scoped artifacts). It also clarifies that routine code changes belong in git. This fully routes an agent to the correct tool.

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