remember_project_note

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context ('repo-scoped', 'source-backed'), but does not disclose safety implications (e.g., mutability, permissions, or side effects). Neutral and adequate but not rich.

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?

Extremely concise: two clauses in a single sentence. The compatibility warning is front-loaded, and every word serves a purpose. No wasted text.

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?

With 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. The agent has no understanding of parameter semantics, return values, or prerequisites.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent with no guidance on fields like 'tags', 'files', or 'confidence'.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Store') and resource ('repo-scoped source-backed memory note'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it's a compatibility alias for 'store_memory'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer store_memory', indicating this tool is only for backward compatibility and that the agent should use the alternative when possible. This provides clear when-to-use vs when-not guidance.

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