remember_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a write action and an additional side effect ('can also silence a finding'), which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, whether previous entries are overwritten, or any permission/confirmation requirements. It provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows immediately, and the additional mute behavior is a short, clearly separated sentence. Each sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Parameter semantics are covered by the schema, and the description gives call conditions and a side effect. The only gap is the dangling reference to '`mutes`' when no such sibling tool appears in the provided list, which could confuse an agent.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real-world meaning by mapping the enum to examples: 'a goal, a race and its date, an injury, or a free-form note.' This enriches the meaning of `kind` beyond the schema's terse 'What sort of thing this is.'

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 uses the specific verb 'Records' with a clear resource ('something about the user that Garmin does not know') and enumerates the exact kinds: goal, race and date, injury, or free-form note. This scope cleanly distinguishes it from the reading-oriented sibling tools and the more subjective log_subjective.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this whenever the user mentions one in passing,' which gives a concrete trigger. It also supplies a boundary ('that Garmin does not know') and mentions an alternate use ('silence a finding'). It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the usage context is clear enough.

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