memory_record_task

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with closed-world scope. The description reinforces the persistence intent and lists the types of content stored, but it does not add operational details such as whether records can be updated, how supersession works, or what the tool returns. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single well-formed sentence with no wasted words. The core action and content are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 write tool with 11 parameters, including supersession and source-evidence linkage, the description is minimal. The schema covers parameter details and annotations cover safety, but the description does not explain the tool's return behavior or how features like supersedes and validation_refs should be used in practice. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description names several key inputs (files, assumptions, evidence, open risks) but omits others such as supersedes, source_evidence, validation_refs, root, and format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('useful task outcomes') along with the kinds of content captured (files, assumptions, evidence, open risks). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool, likely because none of the listed siblings directly overlap.

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 phrase 'for future sessions' implies this should be used to record outcomes that later sessions will need, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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