remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is for persisting data (write operation) and advises specificity, but it fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether data can be overwritten, deleted, or if there are any side effects. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an AI agent about the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a basic framework but is not fully complete. It lacks information about error handling, persistence guarantees, or any limits. While adequate for simple use, it could be more comprehensive.

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%, meaning the input schema already describes each parameter (tags, type, content, project). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Persist important context to collective memory.' It uses a specific verb ('persist') and resource ('context to collective memory'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'recall' by implication (remember stores, recall retrieves). The use cases are explicitly listed: after decisions, completed work, architectural choices, status changes.

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 provides clear usage context, specifying when to use the tool ('after decisions, completed work, architectural choices, status changes') and gives guidance to be specific and self-contained. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'recall', so it falls 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.