memory_remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does add useful behavioral context: 'private,' 'vault,' 'semantic embedding,' and hierarchy. It does not disclose behaviors such as duplicate-title handling, temporal decay, or return value, which leaves some opacity for a state-changing tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and every detail—privacy, vault, embedding, tags, scope—earns its place. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Schema plus description covers what to pass, but the absence of annotations and output schema, combined with seven sibling tools, leaves gaps: no routing guidance versus ingestion/sharing tools and no statement of what happens on success or when a title already exists. Complete enough for basic invocation but not fully self-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 100% and each parameter already has meaningful descriptions (e.g., room is 'Topic within the wing'; pinned explains Ebbinghaus decay). The description adds only the notion of hierarchy, not substantive parameter semantics, so the 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 states a specific action ('Store') and a specific resource ('private memory note in the vault') while naming key processing details: semantic embedding, tags, and hierarchical wing/room scope. 'Private' distinguishes it from shared publication, and the write verb separates it from retrieval siblings like memory_recall.

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?

Usage is implied by the store verb: use this when saving a private memory note. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary against siblings like memory_ingest_session and memory_publish_shared.

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