remember_person

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

With only generic false annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses create-or-update semantics, durable persistence, alias merging into existing records, the is_self restriction, and the return info (person + created flag)—substantially beyond what annotations state.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core action and use case, then pack alias semantics into the minimum necessary detail. No sentence is redundant or filler.

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 5-parameter upsert tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics, key parameters, merge behavior, and return values. The only omission, 'source', is a defaulted provenance field and does not block correct use.

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 must compensate. It explains name (matching key), aliases (object shape with kinds and merge behavior), summary (who they are), and is_self (only for the user), but leaves 'source' undocumented beyond its default.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Create a new person or update the existing one matching `name`'), making the upsert behavior unmistakable. It also distinguishes this from relationship/fact tools like set_relationship and record_fact by focusing on the person record itself.

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?

'Use this to durably record someone the user talks about' gives clear context for when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough to route an agent to this tool over fact/relationship siblings.

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