remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two important traits: this is a write/persistence operation ('写入本地记忆') and it requires user approval first. However, it says nothing about reversibility, where the memory lives, whether writes are deduplicated or overwritten, or what happens after approval.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and appends the approval constraint; nothing is wasted. The bilingual duplication is deliberate audience coverage rather than padding, though it does double the length.

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 small two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the approval gate, which is the minimum viable set. It leaves the 'scope' parameter and the memory semantics (persistence, retrieval, overwrite behavior) unexplained, so an agent still has open questions before invoking.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies 'lesson' (a single verified, reusable lesson) but gives no explanation of the optional 'scope' parameter — what it scopes, valid values, or the effect of leaving it null.

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 names a specific verb and resource — writing one verified, reusable lesson into local memory — and clarifies the otherwise vague tool name 'remember'. No sibling tool in the list touches memory persistence, so there is zero ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 clear qualifying context (the lesson must be 'verified' and 'reusable') and states a prerequisite ('needs user approval'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming alternatives, but there are no plausible alternatives among the siblings.

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