keep_moment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds context beyond them: kept moments are never merged, faded, or deleted automatically, the 20 most recent surface on every `wake_up`, and each call creates a new entry (reinforcing non-idempotency). It also states the return shape, `{ data: moment }`, which no output schema provides.

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?

Five short sentences with distinct jobs: what it is, durability guarantees and wake_up surfacing, sibling routing, non-idempotency, return shape. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from structured fields verbatim.

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 three-parameter, single-required-field write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, retention semantics, wake_up interaction, idempotency, sibling routing, and the return object. An agent can call it correctly and predict the consequences without further inference.

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 100%, so all three parameters — content, namespace, context_message_ids — are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the spirit of `content` ('in the person's own words') but adds no new syntax, defaults, or constraints for `namespace` or `context_message_ids`. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 concrete verb and resource — keeping a moment in the person's own words — and illustrates the category with examples (a first time, a promise, a confession). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling `remember` for ordinary facts, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use remember for ordinary facts and this for the moments themselves.' That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, which is exactly what the sibling tools (`remember`, `recall`, `list_memories`) make necessary.

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