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 states the tool stores data into memory for later recall, implying non-destructiveness. However, it lacks details on idempotency, storage limits, or overwrite behavior, which would be helpful for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines. No redundant words; information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

While the output schema exists (reducing need to explain return values), the description fails to cover all three parameters (missing session_id). It also doesn't mention confirmation or returned identifier, leaving some behavioral gaps. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It explains 'content' (store a fact) and 'project_id' (scoping), but does not mention 'session_id' at all, leaving that parameter's purpose unclear.

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 verb 'Store' and the resource 'fact / decision / note into local EverOS memory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (briefing, list_memories, search_memory) by focusing on storage rather than retrieval.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('high-value context worth keeping across sessions') and when not to ('not whole conversations'). It also explains scoping behavior with project_id, but does not mention alternatives or when-not to use relative to siblings.

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