agent_remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses one trait: that supplying team_id also writes into a team shared space. It says nothing about idempotency, overwrite/dedup behavior, permission or auth requirements, failure modes, or what the 'share' default of true actually implies.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it reads efficiently. But given six parameters, nested objects, and zero schema documentation, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the team-sharing branch. An agent still lacks the information needed to call it correctly and predict its effects.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only explains team_id's side effect. Required fields (agent_id, messages), the share default, metadata, and event_time receive no semantic clarification anywhere, leaving the agent to guess formats such as event_time encoding or the accepted message shapes.

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 and resource ('以 agent 身份写入记忆' – write memory as an agent), which tells the agent this is an agent-scoped write rather than a generic one. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling memory_add, so an agent cannot tell which write tool to pick from the description alone.

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 use this tool versus memory_add, memory_search, or memory_consolidate, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The team_id clause describes a behavioral effect rather than a selection rule, so usage must be inferred.

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