memory_remember

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses cost ($0.003/call), wallet requirement, and the fact that the index is per-wallet and not hostable in-session. It does not cover rate limits, data persistence, or error cases, but it provides key behavioral context for a store 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, cost, and pairing hint. No unnecessary words, clear structure.

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 store tool with complete schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, identifier, and paired tool. Missing details about error cases or data limitations are minor given schema constraints.

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 has 100% coverage for all 3 parameters. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what schema provides; it only mentions storing text and returning an ID, without elaborating on meta or owner parameters. 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 clearly states the tool stores text for later similarity recall, uses a per-wallet semantic index, returns an ID, and pairs with memory_recall for retrieval. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_recall (retrieve vs store) and memory_read/write.

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 tells when to use it (store text for semantic recall) and explicitly pairs it with memory_recall for retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use other sibling tools like memory_write or memory_read, leaving some ambiguity.

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