warden__remember

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the store is private, local, and encrypted, which matters for an agent deciding what to write. But it omits whether saves are deduplicated or overwritten, whether the write persists across sessions, any size limits, and what the call returns.

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?

A single eleven-word sentence with zero filler; the privacy qualifiers are front-loaded and capitalized so they register before the agent commits to writing sensitive content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what happens on save (confirmation, identifier, overwrite behavior) and how tags interact with later recall. Neither is covered, and the undocumented `tags` parameter leaves the write-side contract underspecified.

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 50%: `text` is documented as "the note to remember" while `tags` has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining what tags are for (retrieval via warden__recall, categorization), so half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

"Save a note ... memory" is a specific verb plus resource, and the qualifiers (PRIVATE, local, encrypted) tell the agent this is a personal persistent store rather than a shared knowledge base. It is distinguishable from warden__recall or warden__knowledge by the write verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to remember versus writing to warden__knowledge, when to look something up with warden__recall first, or what content belongs here. The only implicit cue is the verb "save" itself.

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