remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains automatic enrichment behavior, the effects of setting tier (expiry) and scope (global vs project-specific). However, it does not describe error cases or behavior on duplicate memories, which would warrant a 5.

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 paragraph that efficiently front-loads the purpose and provides organized guidance on when and how to use the tool. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality, usage guidelines, and key behavioral notes. Some parameter details are omitted, but the overall context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide when to use it.

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?

Although the schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to `tier` (expiry details), `scope` (visibility defaults), and implicitly to `content` (should be clear and self-contained). However, many parameters like `type`, `tags`, `metadata`, `source`, `project`, `ttl`, and `session_id` are not explained, missing an opportunity to fully compensate.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('a memory'). It also provides concrete examples of when to use it (e.g., 'solved a tricky bug') and contrasts with not saving trivial things, differentiating it from siblings like `add_conversation` or `recall`.

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?

The description explicitly states 'USE THIS WHEN:' followed by specific scenarios (solved a tricky bug, non-obvious fix, etc.) and 'DO NOT save trivial things', providing clear guidance on when to use and when to avoid. It also explains optional parameters like tier and scope to tailor behavior.

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