memwal_remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the input constraint 'Pass the full, detailed text — never summarize,' which gives operational context. However, it does not disclose what happens on save (e.g., overwrite behavior, response, errors), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 save operation with a minimal schema, the description covers when to call and how to pass text. The absence of namespace documentation and any mention of return values are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 clarifies that 'text' should be the full detailed content, adding semantic meaning. However, the 'namespace' parameter is entirely undocumented, and the description does not explain its role or default behavior.

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 tool saves a fact to the user's Walrus Memory personal memory. The verb 'save' and resource 'Walrus Memory personal memory' are specific, and the instruction to call ONLY on explicit requests distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall or analyze.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Call ONLY when the user explicitly asks to remember/save something.' This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the explicit request condition.

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