aci_remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses the key side effect: the memory is durable and shared across all future sessions and apps. It does not mention overwrite, deletion, or limits, but the core persistence behavior is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and durability scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage boundary is in the second. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly: what to store, why it matters, and what not to store. Minor gaps like duplicate handling or memory limits are not critical for correct 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the content parameter by defining what qualifies as a stable fact ('about themselves, their work, or decisions'), going slightly beyond the schema's generic 'the fact to remember'.

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 states a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('the user's ACI memory'), and clarifies the scope: durable facts available to every future session and other ACI-connected apps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aci_recall and aci_save_skill.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for stable facts about the user, their work, or decisions, and explicitly excludes ephemeral chit-chat. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the use-case guidance is clear enough to route an agent.

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