Write a curated, durable memory note

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the durability/lifecycle semantics (insights are tentative and should be revisited/pruned, unlike settled user facts) and points to goldfish_reflect for provenance. It does not cover write behavior such as deduplication/overwrite or permission prerequisites, leaving a gap for 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the type enumeration, then layered guidance. Dense and purposeful, though the final paragraph on insight/user distinction is somewhat verbose relative to the value it adds.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description handles routing and the trickiest parameter value (`type`) well. The remaining gap is the absence of any semantics for the other three required parameters on a write tool.

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 coverage is 0% with four required params, so the description must compensate. It supplies the meaningful value set for `type` and explains the insight-vs-user distinction, but says nothing about `name`, `content`, or `description`, which remain undocumented in both description and schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Write a curated, durable memory note') and immediately names the categorization scheme (user/feedback/project/reference/insight). It also positions the tool against non-siblings (brain for raw transcript, claude-mem for summaries), so an agent can distinguish it from surrounding memory tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('facts worth carrying into future sessions') and when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('not raw transcript — brain', 'not session summaries — claude-mem'), plus a quality bar ('hand-picked, still-true facts'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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