memory_remember

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'pinned' but does not explain what that implies (e.g., persistence, lifetime, side effects). The write operation lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or state changes.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but comes at the cost of missing critical details. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place by providing sufficient information.

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?

Given the tool's 7 parameters (including complex ones like 'scope' with enum and 'confidence' with range), no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate for proper tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds zero parameter information. It does not explain fields like 'cwd', 'scope', 'source', or 'subject', leaving the agent with only raw schema names.

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 clearly states the action ('store'), the resource ('pinned memory item'), and the purpose ('future Codex project bootstrap/context'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'memory_forget' or 'memory_search'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_update' or 'memory_bootstrap'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection.

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