memory_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two real behavioral traits — data stays local to this machine, and quality is self-rated unless externally confirmed. It says nothing about overwrite/dedup behavior, required auth, or what the call returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a write tool.

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 telegraphic sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and the core action; the quality and outcome clauses immediately follow. Terseness occasionally costs clarity ('Stays on this machine' is compressed), but nothing is wasted.

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 8-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two semantically tricky fields but omits return behavior, whether records are keyed/overwritten by goal, and the role of site versus route. Adequate to call it, not adequate to call it confidently.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate; it explains quality's 0..1 scale and provenance via 'self-rated unless confirmed', and enumerates the outcome values with 'blocked' defined. That leaves goal, site, notes, seconds, and most of route semantics undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('store how it went') plus an explicit trigger point ('After a task'), so the agent knows this is the write side of episodic memory. It doesn't name memory_recall or lesson_record to disambiguate, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 opening 'After a task' gives a clear invocation window, and 'blocked (captcha or rate limit)' clarifies which situations count as a recorded outcome rather than retries. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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