remember_decision

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Store' implies a write operation, but the description does not mention side effects such as whether this creates a new memory entry, overwrites existing ones, or how context_file influences storage. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness problem.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values, and it fails to cover two of the four parameters. There is no usage guidance, and the behavioral side effects are unstated. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, this description is insufficient for reliable 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'decision' and 'rationale' indirectly, but it does not explain the purpose or format of 'tags' or 'context_file'. The agent is left without guidance on these parameters, which is a significant gap given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Store') on a specific resource ('an architectural or implementation decision') and pairs it with its rationale. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remember_correction and remember_rule, which handle different memory types, by specifying the decision domain.

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 gives context by limiting to architectural or implementation decisions, which hints at appropriate usage, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over remember_correction or remember_rule, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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