remember_session

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the summary is searchable/indexed while the transcript is not. It omits other key behaviors such as whether re-saving the same title overwrites or duplicates, permission requirements, and what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the searchable/non-indexed contrast is packed efficiently. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter mutation tool, but there is no wasted wording.

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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition should explain the remaining fields and the write semantics. As written, an agent cannot confidently populate tags or source, or predict what happens on repeat saves.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description only explains two of them (summary and transcript). The meaning of `title`, `tags`, and `source` — particularly how tags affect searchability and what source denotes — is left entirely undocumented.

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 (save a summary, optionally a transcript) and clarifies the indexing distinction between the two payloads. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `remember`, which an agent could easily confuse with `remember_session`.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to pick this over `remember`, `remember` vs `edit_memory`, or what conditions make a transcript worth passing. The optionality of the transcript is the only implied decision point.

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