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

Beyond the bare title annotation, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: the memory is 'durable' and 'searchable later,' which tells the agent this is a persistent write. It does not enumerate every side effect, but the schema's detailed parameter descriptions cover mechanics like deduplication and category registration, so the tool-level behavior is adequately transparent.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the usage constraint following immediately. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary preamble.

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?

The description gives an agent enough tool-level context to know this is the durable-memory write operation, and the schema's rich parameter descriptions handle the details of category, tier, scope, surface, and dedup. It does not explicitly guide the agent away from sibling tools like 'remember' or state what the function returns, which are the only notable gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 14 parameters, including category slugs, tier semantics, and surface defaults. The description adds only high-level content guidance ('stable decisions, facts, gotchas, patterns') rather than parameter-level detail, so the value added is minimal and the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Add a durable memory') and a clear target resource (the 'knowledge corpus'), and qualifies the intended content ('stable decisions, facts, gotchas, or patterns'). However, it never names any sibling tool or explains how this differs from the similarly named 'remember' or 'note', so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 line 'Use only for stable decisions, facts, gotchas, or patterns that should be searchable later' provides an explicit inclusion criterion, telling the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly say when to use an alternative (e.g., a transient note) or name any of the sibling tools, so the guidance is strong but incomplete.

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