memory_remember

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys cross-session durability, but says nothing about whether writes dedupe, overwrite, return an identifier, or require any prerequisites for a store operation with no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical type list mildly duplicates the schema enum but remains readable.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what a caller gets back and how to later reference the stored memory via siblings (memory_get/memory_update). An agent lacks enough to fully close the loop after storing.

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 75% and the schema itself documents content, tags, and importance. The description only restates the type enum (fact, decision, etc.), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, which matches the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 ('Store') and resource ('long-term memory') and enumerates the memory types, which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like memory_update or memory_consolidate, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to persist things that should be remembered across sessions' gives a clear when-to-use context, but there are no exclusions or alternatives named (e.g. memory_update for edits, memory_consolidate for merging). Usage is implied rather than exhaustive.

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