remember

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false). Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: storage is verbatim/word-for-word rather than summarized, and messages lacking a session id are grouped by day. It does not address deduplication or what happens on repeated identical writes, which the idempotentHint=false leaves open.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and its fidelity, then a compact Args block covers each parameter in a line. Zero filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety/open-world profile. Parameters and core write behavior are documented. Only minor gaps remain: retention/deduplication semantics on repeat writes and any permission requirements.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it, documenting all three parameters: text as the speaker's own words, role with its default and allowed values ("user"/"assistant"), and session as optional with day-grouping noted. The role values in particular are absent from the schema (plain string, no enum), so this adds real 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Store a message in long-term memory, word for word." The "word for word" qualifier sharply defines the fidelity of what is stored. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like recall or forget, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is implied by the verb: you call this when you want something persisted to long-term memory. However, with four siblings (recall, list_memories, forget, fit_context) no when-to-use/when-not routing or alternative is named, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between this and fit_context.

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