remember_task

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the mutation profile is covered. The description usefully adds a data-handling constraint (no source code, secrets, or transcripts), which is real value beyond the annotations. It does not disclose whether an existing entry for the same task_id is overwritten or rejected, which matters for a write 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?

One sentence with no filler, and the resource plus the negative constraint are front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness contributes to the unexplained task_id.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a two-parameter write tool at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the identity/overwrite semantics of task_id entirely unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: "summary" is clarified as a brief technical requirements summary with exclusions. The "task_id" parameter is never mentioned, so it is unclear whether it references a pre-existing task or names a new one, which is the key ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Store") with a specific resource ("a brief technical requirements summary"), so an agent knows this persists a summary keyed by task. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as record_verification or recall_candidates, leaving the boundary between 'remember' and 'record'/'recall' to inference.

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 statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools that also persist or retrieve task-related data. The only guidance is a content exclusion ("never source code, secrets or full conversation"), which constrains what to pass rather than when to use the tool.

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