rlm_remember

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a direct write operation for durable storage, implying mutation. However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, error handling, or authentication requirements. While it communicates core behavior, it could be more transparent.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and organized in a single paragraph. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for scopes. Still, it's efficient and clear.

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 11 parameters, zero required, and no output schema, the description covers core usage and alternatives adequately. However, it does not describe the return value or error conditions, which would help completion. The guidance on scope and type is good, but lacking output details lowers completeness.

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 high (91%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of scopes (e.g., 'agent for one agent role') and lists types, which aids correct usage beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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: 'Store a durable Memory V2 record for later semantic recall.' It lists supported types (fact, decision, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools for different use cases (rlm_context_query, rlm_load_document, rlm_end_of_task_commit).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use vs. when not to: 'Use the narrowest owner scope' with definitions for each scope, and explicitly warns 'Do not store source truth here' with alternative tools listed. Also directs workflow capture to rlm_end_of_task_commit. This clearly helps an agent decide.

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