remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-obvious behavior: secrets are auto-redacted, env:// refs are the recommended pattern, visible_to restricts readership, and subject/predicate/value enable conflict detection. It does not disclose mutation semantics, whether duplicates are merged, or anything about the response.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by tightly packed parameter notes. Semicolons compress several distinct facts efficiently. It is dense but not padded, and nothing reads as 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 16-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-value concepts (aliases, fact triple, entity linking, visibility, redaction) but omits half the parameters and all return/side-effect information. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate entirely. It documents content (with text/fact aliases), subject/predicate/value, entities, and visible_to, but leaves kind, tags, agent, title, api_key, project, session_id, and related_ids completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Store a memory') and enumerates the kinds of things stored (note, observation, fact). It does not differentiate from close siblings such as record_decision or observe_preference, which also persist structured information, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no routing signal.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The line about supplying subject/predicate/value 'for facts' is parameter guidance for a mode, not tool-selection guidance. An agent cannot tell from this text when to call remember versus record_decision, observe_preference, or add_leftover.

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