ora_human_remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions storing memory with mood, intentions, and outcomes, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing memories, success confirmation, or side effects on the active human profile.

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 short and front-loaded, with two concise sentences. No redundancy, though a bit more detail on usage could improve it without compromising conciseness.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain return values or what happens after storage (e.g., how memories are later accessed). The schema covers parameter details so description is somewhat sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions emotional context, intentions, and outcomes, which map to several parameters, but adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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: storing a conversation memory for the active human. It specifies included elements (emotional context, intentions, outcomes), distinguishing it from siblings like ora_human_forget or ora_human_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 implies usage as a memory storage tool but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like ora_capture_note or ora_capture_decision. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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