remember_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Append' implies a mutation, but it does not explain permissions, reversibility, duplicate handling, or what happens to existing profile knowledge when new content is appended.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere rather than being a flaw of conciseness itself.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input semantics and behavioral implications are largely missing.

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 0%, and four of the five parameters (device_id, category, content, source) receive no semantic explanation. The description adds meaning only for confidence by naming two accepted values, but that is far short of compensating for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: append knowledge to a device profile. It is distinguishable from retrieval siblings like get_device_knowledge, but does not explicitly contrast with update_device_profile or forget_device.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_device_knowledge, update_device_profile, or other knowledge-management siblings. The confidence values are mentioned, but not the conditions for choosing between them or when appending is appropriate.

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