remember

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write operation, so the description's bar is lower. It adds that storage is 'versioniert' and can 'speichern oder ergänzen', but it does not explain versioning semantics, overwrite/append behavior, permissions, or how repeated writes are handled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the core action before the parenthetical examples. Every element 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?

Because an output schema exists and the annotations richly describe safety and idempotency, the description does not need to explain return values or the safety profile. It gives enough purpose for a write/upsert tool, though it omits sibling-routing guidance and precise versioning/upsert semantics.

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 80%, so most parameter meaning is already supplied by the schema. The description does not add format, constraints, or semantics for parameters such as art, schluessel, daten, or quelle; the role-profile/feedback examples only loosely suggest possible 'art' values.

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 names a specific action (versioned storing or supplementing in memory) and a specific resource (own data, internal role profiles, expert feedback). It is much clearer than the bare name 'remember', but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling knowledge-ingestion tools such as record_extraction or import_reference_data.

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 examples 'interne Rollenprofile' and 'Expertenfeedback' imply that this tool is for capturing internal/personal knowledge, which gives some usage context. However, it never states when to use it instead of sibling tools like search_knowledge, record_extraction, or import_reference_data, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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