butlerRemember

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real context beyond that: the fact is stored at 'agent trust', it is 'auditable', and Butler will not assert it unprompted. That trust-tier semantics is genuinely useful and not recoverable from the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what gets recorded before the storage/trust caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

Covers what is written and its trust status, which suits a fully-schema-documented write tool with no output schema. However, for a persistent memory store it omits important behavior: whether repeated triples dedup or overwrite, and how this relates to butlerForget/butlerRecall in the same memory family.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including sourceRef and contentConfidence). The description's 'subject + predicate + value' merely restates the required trio and even uses 'value' where the schema says 'object', adding no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema supplies.

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 (Record) plus the resource (one durable fact about the user) and the field shape (subject + predicate + value). The write direction is clearly distinct from the read/delete siblings butlerRecall and butlerForget, though neither is named explicitly.

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?

Gives useful inclusion examples ('preference, household, standing context') that imply what kinds of facts belong here, but offers no exclusion criteria (e.g., no ephemeral facts), no dedup/overwrite guidance, and never points to butlerForget for removal.

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