remember

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

Beyond the annotations (all false, providing no safety profile), the description discloses meaningful behavior: the fact survives the session, becomes searchable only after the next ingest run (eventual consistency), and requires OAuth zme:write scope. It also adds a security rule (never store secrets). This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: what it records, when it becomes searchable, and security/auth constraints. No redundant wording, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (3 scalar params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, durability, indexing behavior, security caveat, and auth requirement. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The text parameter is somewhat inferable from 'Record a durable fact,' but agent and title have no semantic guidance, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 uses 'Record a durable fact' — a specific verb and resource — and clearly distinguishes this write tool from the retrieval siblings (search, fetch, near, recall, why). The types of facts (pitfall, decision, incident) further refine the purpose.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (recording durable facts rather than ephemeral ones) and includes important constraints (never store secrets, requires zme:write scope). It does not explicitly name an alternative for retrieval, but the mention of searchability after ingest implies that search is for later use, which is sufficient.

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