chainmemory_remember

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

No annotations provided; description mentions permanent encryption, auto-tagging, and importance range. Lacks details on side effects, overwrite behavior, or full encryption process, but covers core traits.

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?

Two sentences with key information front-loaded: action, encryption, auto-tagging, importance, use cases. No filler or repetition.

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 write tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose, key parameter usage (importance, encryption), and appropriate use cases. Could briefly mention that summary is required, but it's in schema.

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 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning: notes content as full memory, summary as what will be encrypted, tags as explicit with auto-tagging fallback. Does not elaborate on category enum values 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?

Description clearly states 'Write a permanent encrypted memory to ChainMemory' with specific verb and resource, and mentions auto-tagging and importance scale. Distinguishes from sibling tools like chainmemory_recall and list_memories_filtered.

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?

Says 'Use for important decisions, learnings, milestones the user wants permanently recorded,' providing context but not explicitly contrasting with alternatives like inject_memories or specifying when not to use it.

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