remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses ontology validation, entity merging, supersession of functional relations, provenance recording, and contradiction-warning behavior. This is exactly the kind of side-effect transparency an agent needs before invoking a write-like memory tool.

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 dense sentences carry high information content without fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds behavioral or input guidance that would not be obvious from the bare schema.

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 complex state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors and required inputs thoroughly. It lacks clarification of `dataset` and `session_id`, and does not describe the return value or failure behavior, but the agent can still call it correctly for typical memory-storage cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the shape and meaning of entities, relations, source_text, and summary, and notes optional valid_from/valid_to. It does not mention `dataset` or `session_id`, which remain unexplained, but the most operationally important parameters are covered.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Store memory as a typed graph', then details the exact entities and relations being stored. This clearly distinguishes `remember` from sibling retrieval tools like `recall` and metadata tools like `list_datasets`.

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 gives clear, actionable guidance: 'Pass source_text and a summary so recall can find it lexically,' which tells the agent what inputs are expected and why. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `memify_candidates` or `supersede`, but the context makes the intended use obvious.

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