june_remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that entities and relations are extracted server-side, links to existing knowledge, notes that Pro endpoints run richer engines (and the result reports which engine ran), and explains the return of write counts with an instruction not to echo text. It also mentions size limit (64k chars). It could mention if it overwrites or only appends, but overall it's transparent.

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 appropriately sized, front-loading the core purpose. It is structured logically: purpose, usage, constraints, return instruction, sibling comparison. While every sentence earns its place, it could be slightly tightened (e.g., 'write text' and 'plain text' are redundant). Still, it is effective and clear.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains input format constraints, the process (entity extraction, linking), output format (write counts, not text echoing), and even differentiates between free and Pro endpoints. It lacks error handling or performance notes, but for a write tool with this context, it is sufficient.

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 low (33%, only format has a description). The description compensates by adding that the text parameter accepts plain text or markdown up to ~64k chars, which is beyond the schema. For the format parameter, it effectively repeats the schema's description. The source_app parameter lacks any guidance, so the description provides marginal added value, raising from baseline 2 to 3.

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 saves new information into a shared graph by writing text, with server-side entity/relation extraction. It distinguishes itself from june_ingest by noting it's preferred unless explicit graph structure is needed, clearly differentiating among its nine siblings.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Use when the user states a fact, decision, update or note worth persisting for later' with examples like 'remember that…', meeting notes, and status changes. It also specifies when not to use: prefer over june_ingest unless explicit graph structure is needed.

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