remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does disclose that embeddings and graph extraction happen automatically, which is useful. However, it omits other important traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, destructive, or requires specific permissions, which is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentence that gets immediately to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and key detail about automation, without any fluff. It could benefit from a slight structural break, but overall it is well-sized.

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 four parameters, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error cases, or behavior on duplicate content (overwrite vs. append). Critical context for a store operation is missing, making it incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, so it neither improves nor detracts from the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Store' and identifies the resource as 'a memory entry for a session', making the primary action clear. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'remember_user' by specifying session-based storage, and adds extra context about automatic embeddings and graph extraction.

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 its many siblings (e.g., 'remember_user', 'recall', 'forget'). It does not state prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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