remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It shapes content granularity (one fact per call) but says nothing about persistence, deduplication, whether existing memories are overwritten, or what the call returns — yet it is a simple append-style tool, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 the inclusion rule, then the exclusions. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 an eight-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers content policy well but omits the write semantics an agent needs: what happens if the same fact is remembered twice, whether the record is immutable, and what comes back from the call.

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%, so every parameter including who, why, kind, scope, topic and importance is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'one sentence per entry' constraint on text and contributes no further meaning to the eight parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('记住一句话') and immediately constrains what content belongs in it (fact, preference, decision, lesson). It doesn't name the sibling recall or clarify the boundary with brief, so differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

Explicit inclusion criteria ('「以后用得上」的才写') and exclusions ('不要写寒暄', '不要一次写一段长文') tell the agent precisely when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of routing to alternatives like recall for retrieval, but the write-side guidance is unusually concrete.

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