remember

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

Annotations are all false (no readOnly, no idempotent, etc.), so the description must document side effects. It correctly implies persistence (creating a stored memory) but does not disclose limits (e.g., max memory size, if overwrites occur for same tags). With zero annotation support, it could be more explicit about what gets created or modified.

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 two short paragraphs: a one-line purpose statement followed by a line each for memory types and TTL options. It is front-loaded and efficient. No unnecessary words, but the bullet-like structure in prose could be tighter.

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 covers core function (store), memory types, and TTL, which suffices for a simple storage tool. However, with no output schema and 5 parameters, it misses retrieval context (e.g., how to later fetch by type/tag) and any limits (e.g., character max for content). This leaves an agent partially informed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates memory types and TTL options, duplicating the schema's enum values but not adding deeper meaning (e.g., what 'doc' vs 'note' means semantically). It provides no examples or format rules beyond what the schema declares.

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 states 'Store a memory for later retrieval' with a clear verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like 'recall' (reading memories) and 'forget' (deleting) by focusing on write operations. However, it could more explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 memory types and TTL options, which imply scenarios (e.g., decisions need month TTL). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs 'index' or when not to. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.

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