record_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals durability and optional file/directory scoping, but says nothing about how records interact with existing entries, what authority levels imply, whether entries can be edited, or any auth constraints on a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the optional-scope clause is placed sensibly at the end. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 explained, but for a write tool with 8 parameters, 5 required, 0% schema coverage, and zero annotations, the description is far too thin to let an agent call this correctly.

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 8 parameters, and the description only alludes to one of them (applies_to, via 'project-relative files or directories'). The critical enum fields kind and authority, plus title, content, tags, source, and project_path, receive no explanatory text anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb (record) and resource (durable knowledge) and adds a scoping qualifier. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_memory and the dispute/supersede siblings by being the write path, but it never names those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to record versus when to use supersede_memory or dispute_memory, nor any stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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