remember_fact

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

The description implies a mutation operation ('persist'), but with no annotations, it carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or behavior on duplicate content. The phrase 'safe mutation pipeline' is vague and not backed by specifics.

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 sentence with no fluff, achieving conciseness. However, it sacrifices completeness; a slightly longer description could improve value without losing efficiency.

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 4 parameters, an output schema, and 1 required parameter, the description covers almost none of the necessary context. It fails to explain what a memory fact is, how parameters affect behavior, or what the output contains. This is severely incomplete for practical use.

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 adds no information about any of the four parameters (content, scope, tags, visibility). The AI agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient 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 clearly indicates the tool persists a memory fact, using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings, it contrasts with 'list_facts' and 'purge_fact', showing distinct purpose. However, the term 'memory fact' is not elaborated, and the phrasing 'through the shared safe mutation pipeline' adds jargon without clarification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. Sibling tools like 'list_facts' or 'purge_fact' are not referenced, leaving the AI agent without decision support.

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