hebbrix_remember_many

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the return structure (created/failed/memory_ids), the default of wait_for_index=False, the option to block for searchability, and the transparent fallback to sequential writes on lower tiers with a 'fallback' field. This goes far beyond a simple mutation statement.

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?

Though longer than minimal, every sentence provides essential information: purpose, usage, parameter behavior, return values, and tier caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and gracefully flows into details, making the length justified and well-structured.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, returns, and edge cases (free-tier fallback). An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to enumerate returns, but it still provides key fields. For a batch tool with nuances, this is complete and leaves no major 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'facts' as 'a list of short, self-contained facts (one fact per string)' and clarifying 'wait_for_index' with its default and effect. However, it does not explain 'collection_id' at all; while the name and default null make it self-evident, full compensation would require at least a brief mention.

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 'Store MANY facts in one call,' using a specific verb and resource while explicitly distinguishing this from hebbrix_remember by stating 'use this instead of calling hebbrix_remember N times.' This clearly identifies the tool's batch purpose and differentiates it from its primary sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'When you've extracted several distinct facts from one user message, use this instead of calling hebbrix_remember N times.' It also explains the benefit (one round-trip, one rate-limit hit) and notes the free-tier fallback behavior, offering a complete decision framework.

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