remember

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: it discloses that credentials come from MCP client config rather than arguments, that notes are encrypted per user and readable across devices, that writes land in a durable write-ahead buffer batched hours later, and that `stored: false` must be surfaced rather than assumed. It even pre-empts a likely misinterpretation by stating a `buffered:` receipt is healthy, not degraded — exactly the kind of behavioral context structured fields cannot supply.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger conditions, and every paragraph maps to a real agent failure mode (duplicate digests, misreporting buffered writes as failures). It is on the long side, and the explanation of Walrus per-write pricing is justification rather than instruction, but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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 two-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would hit: what `stored` and `receipt` mean, what to do on failure, and where credentials come from. No return-value documentation is missing that the output schema doesn't already provide.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by clarifying that identity and passphrase are NOT parameters but come from client configuration, which prevents an agent from trying to supply them. It does not elaborate on `folder` organization beyond what the schema already states, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Store one thing in the user's private, portable memory on Walrus') and immediately constrains scope to one item per call. The contrast with 'recall' ('recall first so the digest supersedes earlier notes instead of duplicating them') lets an agent separate it from its closest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggers — 'the moment something is worth carrying into a future session: a decision, a preference, a fact about the project, or an action taken on the user's behalf' — plus a session-end handoff-digest rule. It names the alternative ('recall first') and the ordering constraint, so when-to-use and when-to-prefer-recall are both explicit.

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