Remember note

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: notes are 'append-only JSONL' stored under a specific path, and 'never edited or deleted by this tool'. This fully discloses persistence and mutation semantics, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, use-case timing, persistence model, and authoring guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple create-note tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains why to call it, what to write, how data is stored, and how it will be retrieved later. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics for text and tags ('short and self-contained', 'use tags for later filtering'), and clarifies the workspace-contextual nature of the note. It does not add detail about the workspace parameter, but the schema already covers that.

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 uses a specific verb with a resource: 'Save a short persistent note for this workspace' and immediately ties it to recovery via 'recall', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like work_log or write_file. The purpose is unmistakable even before looking at the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: 'after finishing a chunk of work', and what to record (changes, next steps, decisions). It names recall as the recovery mechanism, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from work_log, so it falls just short of a 5.

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