Write one fact to your operator memory in ODEI — the World Model grows from it. Server-side (ODEI-hosted) memory for the paired operator; not the local world-model capsule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fact | Yes | The fact to remember (max 2000 chars). | |
| kind | No | Optional kind tag, e.g. preference, project, person. Defaults to note. | |
| session_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains the write action and server-side location, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, overwrite rules, rate limits, or required authentication.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states action and effect; second clarifies scope. Efficient and focused.
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?
Simple tool; description covers main purpose and scope. No output schema, but return value is not critical here. Could mention session token dependency from handshake, but not essential.
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 coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params described). Description does not add semantic detail beyond 'write one fact'—baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries most burden.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('operator memory in ODEI'), clearly differentiating from sibling 'wm_recall' (recall) and contrasting with local world-model capsule.
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?
States when to use (writing to ODEI-hosed memory) and provides context (server-side, paired operator), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, though sibling list implies them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: handshake, plan, report step, status, talk for the ceremony; recall and remember for memory. No overlap between tools or groups.
Tools use snake_case, but prefixes are inconsistent: five use 'odei_connect_' and two use 'wm_'. While each group is internally consistent, the mix across a single server named 'connect' is confusing.
7 tools is a reasonable count, not too few or many. However, the server covers two distinct domains (ceremony and memory), which might be better separated.
The connect ceremony tools cover handshake, plan, report, status, talk—seemingly complete for a session lifecycle. The memory tools only provide read and write, missing update and delete, which are notable gaps for a memory store.
