memory_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that memories are durable and persistent, and that search is lexical, which is useful. But it doesn't explain side effects, how supersedes works, or any authorization requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then usage guidance and parameter tips. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 memory-add tool with 6 optional params and an output schema, it covers the main use case, persistence, keywords, and content formatting. It leaves out semantics for source, workspace, and supersedes, but is otherwise quite complete for typical agent scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains kind='lesson', content as one line, and keywords with specific examples. However, source, supersedes, and workspace are not touched, so three of six parameters remain undocumented.

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 'Save a durable fact, decision, or lesson to the user's persistent memory', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool memory_recall, which would retrieve memories.

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?

It explicitly states when to call: 'Call when you learn something worth remembering across sessions.' It also provides concrete formatting guidance for bug lessons. However, it doesn't mention exclusions or compare to memory_recall, so it falls short of a 5.

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