remember_skill

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 partially discharges that by disclosing that skills never decay and appear in the current context summary, plus the return shape {id, message}. It is silent on important mutation semantics: whether saving under an existing name overwrites or duplicates, any size or count limits, and whether recall ranking is the only effect of `importance`. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, those omissions are material.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The return-value sentence is slightly terse in format but still earns its place by removing ambiguity about the response.

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 five-parameter write tool with no annotations, the definition covers purpose, persistence behavior, and the return shape, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the handling of re-used names and any capacity limits, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 100%, and every parameter already carries an example or range, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds conceptual framing ("reusable procedure","appear in the current context summary") but no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Saves a reusable procedure for this project") and grounds it with concrete examples (how to release, how to run a migration), which separates it from a generic memory write. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `remember` tool, so an agent must still infer that this is for procedural knowledge rather than arbitrary facts.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase "reusable procedure" and the release/migration examples, which tell the agent this is for repeatable workflows rather than one-off notes. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no named alternative (e.g., use `remember` for plain facts), and no prerequisites stated.

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