Remember Architecture & Policy Fact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that facts persist 'into SQLite memory_facts' and are used for 'cross-session enforcement,' which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose overwrite behavior for existing keys, upsert mechanics, or any rate/permission concerns—gaps that matter 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates purpose, storage location, and persistence scope without repetition.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters (3 required), nested objects, and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't explain the fact lifecycle (e.g., does re-persisting the same key replace or merge?), nor the relationship to sibling memory tools, leaving some ambiguity for correct 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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters well, including examples for key, kind, value, and confidence. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('persist a project operating rule, workflow default, or verification standard') and names the storage target ('SQLite memory_facts') along with the effect ('cross-session enforcement'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like kilo_record_reflection or kilo_memory_report, though it doesn't explicitly name how it differs from them.

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 implies usage through 'Explicitly persist' and 'cross-session enforcement,' suggesting this is for durable facts. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., why not kilo_record_reflection), and no prerequisites.

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