Remember

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a significant behavioral trait: encryption happens in the process, the key never leaves it, and the server only holds unreadable ciphertext. It also explains that the returned cell id is the one saihm_forget consumes, which is useful operational context. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false 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?

The description is compact: it leads with the core purpose, adds the security-critical encryption detail, states the primary usage trigger, explains cell update behavior, and closes with the return-value relationship. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers when to use, how to update, the security boundary, and what the caller receives. Missing details like storage limits or beyond-session semantics are not necessary for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description enriches 'content' as fact/decision/context and clarifies the cellId update-vs-create behavior, but these mostly restate or lightly extend the schema rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store information in SAIHM persistent memory.' It clearly distinguishes create from update behavior, and even ties the return value to the saihm_forget tool, making its role among sibling tools unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool: when a fact, decision, or piece of context should outlive the current session. It also gives concrete guidance for updating an existing cell by passing a cellId. It does not explicitly list when not to use sibling tools like recall or forget, but the usage context is clear enough.

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