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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: memory is scoped by the agent identifier, authenticated users get persistent memory, and anonymous sessions retain it for 24 hours. It also frames the tool as a storage operation paired with recall/forget, adding meaningful context beyond idempotentHint.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance, storage details, and companion-tool references. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter memory tool, the description covers purpose, when to use it, persistence semantics, scoping, and related tools. Combined with helpful annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), including key and value format examples. The description reinforces that the tool stores key-value pairs but does not add further parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later', giving a specific verb and resource. It also explains the key-value storage model and explicitly mentions recall and forget, which distinguishes it from sibling retrieval/deletion 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 clear usage context: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' and gives concrete examples. It names recall and forget as complementary tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use remember.

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