Remember a fact

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: repeated identical facts raise confidence rather than creating duplicates, and the facts feed the companion_persona prompt — downstream effects the annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then dedup semantics, then downstream effect. Every sentence adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 three-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what it does, its dedup behavior, and its consumer (companion_persona). Minor gaps remain: no guidance on retrieval via femboy_recall and no note on how the pre-populated confidence interacts with repeated facts.

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 coverage is 100%, including min/max lengths and the confidence scale semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only implies brevity ('short fact') without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Persist a short fact ... into the memory log') with clear scope: user or project facts. It does not name or differentiate from the obvious sibling femboy_recall, so the distinction between writing and reading memory is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'persist a short fact', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of femboy_recall for retrieval or femboy_changes_since for observing memory drift. An agent must infer the write-vs-read split from the sibling list.

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