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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: storage is scoped by the agent's identifier, authenticated users get persistent memory, and anonymous sessions retain data for only 24 hours. It also explains the key-value structure and how the tool fits into the memory lifecycle, which is not implied by the annotations alone.

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 description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage context, and the third covers storage details and sibling relationships. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or 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 simple write-only tool with two string parameters, the description fully covers purpose, usage, persistence behavior, and related tools. No output schema is needed for a memory write, and the details about auth/TTL provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, with both 'key' and 'value' already well-described including examples. The description only repeats the 'key-value pair' concept without adding additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' with the specific resource being memory. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete,' which sets it apart from other tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' with concrete examples like resolved ticker, target address, user preference, and research subject. It also mentions pairing with recall and forget, clarifying the alternative/complementary tools.

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