remember

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose important behaviors like ttl_seconds expiry, permanent when None, and related_to for graph traversal. Yet it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing memories, permissions, or persistence guarantees, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 remarkably concise: four sentences cover the main purpose and all key parameters without unnecessary detail. The first sentence frontloads the action, and the subsequent parameter explanations are telegraphic but highly informative.

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?

The description is largely complete for a write operation: it explains key selection, namespaces, TTL, and relations, and the output schema covers return values. The main gaps are key_types semantics and any guidance about using remember_batch for bulk writes, which would have made it fully complete.

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 adds significant meaning for keys (search terms, 3-6 diverse), namespace (project/context), ttl_seconds (with example and permanent default), and related_to (graph traversal). However, key_types is not explained at all, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema 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 opens with 'Save important information to memory', clearly stating the action and resource. The verb 'save' distinguishes it from retrieval, deletion, and batch siblings, and the parameter explanations reinforce its write-purpose.

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 provides practical guidance on key selection ('think what would I search to find this later?'), namespace usage with examples, and TTL vs permanent storage, which implies when to set expiry. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like recall or remember_batch, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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