remember_correction

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that stored content is durable rather than transient. However, it does not describe what happens on repeated topics, whether stored corrections are automatically applied later, or what response the caller should expect.

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 sentences with no filler; the first establishes the action/resource and the second gives usage boundaries. Every phrase contributes to selection and safe use.

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?

The core purpose and exclusions are present, but the description omits any explanation of the optional parameters, value semantics, or persistence behavior, and no annotations compensate. For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only conveys the general semantic of topic/lesson as a correction. Tags, importance, and context_file are left entirely to their bare titles and defaults, so agents cannot infer valid values or intended usage.

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 a clear verb ('Store') and resource ('correction or lesson learned') and states the purpose ('durable guidance... prevent repeated mistakes'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling remember_rule or remember_decision, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives positive guidance ('Use for durable guidance that should prevent repeated mistakes') and explicit negative boundaries ('do not store credentials, secrets, or transient chat context'). It does not name alternatives such as remember_rule or remember_decision, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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