remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior that memory persists across sessions, which is important. It does not elaborate on side effects, limits, or failure modes, but for a straightforward store operation this is sufficient; still, it lacks the depth seen in higher-scoring transparency descriptions.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the use case. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity and the rich schema (all parameters documented), the description covers purpose and usage well. It doesn't mention return values, but there's no output schema and the operation is a straightforward store. However, it could mention the optional parameters to be more complete, so a 4 is fair.

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 all four parameters (content, context, metadata, importance) have descriptions. The tool description adds extra meaning by listing example content categories that map to the context parameter, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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 'Store a memory' – a specific verb+resource that clearly indicates the tool's write/persist function. It distinguishes from siblings like recall and forget by specifying it's for persisting information across sessions, and lists example memory types (decisions, preferences, architecture, patterns).

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 states 'Use this to persist decisions, preferences, architecture, patterns, or anything that should survive across sessions,' giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools like recall or forget as alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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