rememb_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the core behavior ('creates a new entry and returns its ID'), clarifies what it doesn't do ('does not overwrite existing entries'), and provides context about persistence ('worth remembering across sessions'). However, it doesn't mention potential constraints like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core functionality, clarifying behavioral constraints, and providing usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the essential context: what it does, what it doesn't do, when to use it, and alternatives. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return value format beyond just 'returns its ID' (e.g., what type of ID, error responses).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or relationships.

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 specific action ('Save a new memory entry'), resource ('memory entry'), and outcome ('creates a new entry and returns its ID'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'does not overwrite existing entries' and naming 'rememb_edit' as the alternative for updates.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('when you learn something new worth remembering across sessions') and when not to use ('does not overwrite existing entries'). It also names the specific alternative tool ('rememb_edit') for updating existing entries, providing clear context for tool selection.

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