remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose a key behavior—metadata enables automatic replacement of stale guidance numbers—but it doesn't mention return values, side effects, or any destructive potential. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then immediately gives critical usage guidance. No fluff—every sentence 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?

For a write tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics sufficiently. It lacks return value details and explicit side-effect disclosure, but is still reasonably complete for typical 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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond schemas: it explains the event_time_iso field must reflect when the event occurred, not now, and shows how metadata supports supersession. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('Store a financial fact, observation, or decision in persistent memory') with a clear resource (persistent memory). The verb 'store' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'reconstruct', which are read operations.

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 provides strong guidance on how to use the tool (e.g., event_time_iso semantics, metadata for supersession) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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