remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses zero credit cost, that this is user data not a permission, that the fact 'only shapes your own chat context, never project content and never another member's graph', the required memory:write key right, and idempotency behavior (the response echoes the key used).

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps the operational details (scope rules, permission, idempotency) compact. Slightly dense with a minor wording glitch ('YOUR visibly brain'), but no wasted sentences.

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 4-param mutation with an output schema available, the description covers everything an agent needs: action, auth, scope branching, idempotency, and the blast radius of the stored data. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 scope semantics (project vs account), the conditional dependency scope=project needs project_id, and the retry use-case for idempotency_key. Only 'content' is left uninterpreted, which is self-evident.

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 specific verb+resource ('Store a fact in ... the key holder's memory graph') and explicitly ties it to its sibling by noting the fact is 'read back by recall and the chat', so an agent can distinguish remember (write) from recall (read).

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 concrete selection rules: scope=project requires project_id, scope=account applies across all projects, and idempotency_key should be passed when retrying. It also states the needed permission (memory:write). The only gap is the absence of an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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