remember_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that this is a persistent write operation, that it is mandatory at incident close, and that it should contain a conclusion rather than a status. It does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or error conditions, but the provided context is substantial.

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 three sentences with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful context about audience, timing, and content requirements. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 4 required) and zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for guiding correct invocation. It explains the tool's purpose and when to use it but does not address how to populate key fields like failure_mode, root_cause, lineage_path, or changed_field.

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?

The description provides no information about any of the 11 parameters, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The parameter names such as 'dataset_urn' and 'failure_mode' are self-explanatory, but the tool description adds no value in explaining required or optional parameters, leaving many ambiguous.

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 writes a conclusion into the graph for humans and the next agent. It is specific about the action (write), the resource (graph), and the content (tonight's conclusion), and it distinguishes the tool from sibling recall tools as the final write step.

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?

Explicitly instructs that this is the last thing to do on any incident and that it is not optional. It also provides a clear content guideline—write a conclusion, never a status—and explains the rationale: the next agent reads this instead of starting from nothing.

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