Remember

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does note it is a write and that 'saying it is not saving it,' which is a valuable behavioral insight. However, it omits details about side effects, persistence scope, or potential errors, relying on schema routing hints for additional context.

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 a parenthetical qualifier. It is concise, informative, and avoids redundancy, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description and schema collectively cover the core invocation steps, including trigger phrases and routing. However, the undocumented project parameter and lack of confirmation/return behavior leave minor gaps.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for content and context (67% coverage), with the context parameter richly documented through routing hints. The project parameter has no description and the tool description does not explain it, leaving a noticeable gap in parameter understanding.

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 explicitly identifies this as a MID-SESSION WRITE for a single fact or decision, and lists specific trigger phrases ('remember, store, note, save'). It distinguishes itself from likely read or session siblings by focusing on persistence of a specific item.

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 gives clear usage guidance with concrete triggers ('Use when the user asks to remember, store, note, or save a specific decision, fact, or insight.'). It does not provide when-not-to-use exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous for a write operation.

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