brain_remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the tool writes a markdown note with frontmatter tags, indexes it immediately for same-call searchability, persists across sessions, and shares memories across all MCP hosts mounting loci. This is rich, non-obvious behavior beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then behavior, then usage. Every sentence adds distinct value—storage semantics, indexing behavior, persistence/sharing, and explicit usage boundaries—with no filler or repetition.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential operational context: what is written, where it is written, how it is indexed, how long it persists, who can access it, and when to use it. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 100%, so the schema already clearly documents text, tags, and title. The description adds context about markdown/frontmatter formatting but does not materially expand on the individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store a durable memory (decision, fact, preference, lesson learned) into the shared knowledge base.' It clearly distinguishes this from recall tools by naming brain_search and brain_ask for retrieval, and from ephemeral use by explicitly excluding chit-chat.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('use for decisions, facts, preferences and lessons worth recording') and when-not-to-use ('do not use for ephemeral chit-chat'). It also names the recall alternatives (brain_search, brain_ask) and explains cross-session, cross-host persistence, giving an agent clear context for selection.

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