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

The description adds durability context beyond annotations: 'Survives your process dying' and the wallet-bound nature clarify persistence semantics. It also discloses the cost per call. The schema already notes overwrite behavior, so the description need not repeat it.

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 definition is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: durability, when-to-use context, and pricing. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given the low annotation richness and absence of an output schema, the description covers the key decision-relevant aspects: what it stores, how long it persists, when to use it, and what it costs. It does not describe the response shape or mention that deleting requires memory_delete, but those are minor for a simple write tool.

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 high at 75%, with key, value, and ttl_seconds already explained in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'durable key/value fact', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Store a durable key/value fact bound to your wallet.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get and memory_delete by intent and persistence. The title 'Remember something' is vague, but the description carries the definition adequately.

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 provides an explicit 'When to use' section with concrete examples such as decisions, credentials, user preferences, and task progress. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full exclusions guidance.

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