remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the memory is 'durable' (persistent), which is a useful trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing memories, size limits, or namespace behavior), leaving some uncertainty for a write operation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description combined with the rich schema provides sufficient context. It explains when to use it and what type of content to store, making it nearly complete for its purpose.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage of parameter descriptions, including text, tags, and namespace with default and examples. The description adds marginal context by suggesting types of facts to store, but it does not elaborate on parameter usage 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Store a durable memory.' It specifies the resource (memory) and the verb (store). It also provides examples of content types ('facts about the user, projects, rules, decisions') and implies a distinction from retrieval tools like 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 says 'Use for facts about the user, projects, rules, decisions you should recall later,' giving clear context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like upsert or forget, but the intended use case is evident.

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