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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — the fact survives sessions and model changes — but says nothing about duplicate handling, idempotency, storage limits, or whether writes can be undone. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is fine.

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 compact fragments with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the tag/importance hints. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

This is a write path into a multi-store memory system with six parameters and no annotation coverage, yet the description explains only two of the fields and gives no guidance about which store or sibling to use. The output schema relieves it of return-value detail, but the input-side gaps remain significant.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It adds real meaning for two fields (tags are for search; importance is a 1–5 range, which the schema leaves as a bare default of 3) but leaves kind, source, session, and text semantics undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb ("Запомнить" / remember) and resource ("факт" / fact), plus the persistence trait. It does not differentiate from obvious siblings like soma_recall or soma_cold_put, so the agent cannot tell from this text alone which memory store to write to.

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?

"Теги для поиска" hints that tags exist for later retrieval, but no tool is named and there is no when/when-not guidance. With siblings soma_recall, soma_cold_put, and soma_reflect in the namespace, the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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