remember_batch

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it saves silently, is mandatory before replying, and returns saved IDs. But it does not explain conflict handling, permissions, or potential side effects like overwriting existing memories.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a structure note. It front-loads the critical purpose and imperative usage, with no unnecessary words.

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 complexity of the items parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the use case, return value, and high-level constraint. Minor gaps remain on error handling and duplicates, but overall it is 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?

The description lists the fields within each item (content, keys, etc.), adding structure beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of fields like 'keys' or 'related_to' in sufficient detail.

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: saving multiple durable facts in a turn. It uses strong language 'MANDATORY END-OF-TURN GATE' and contrasts with multiple remember() calls, which distinguishes it from a single-fact variant.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('when a turn reveals multiple durable facts') and mentions it is more efficient than multiple remember() calls. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare with other siblings like correct or forget.

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