remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does establish the key trait — durable, long-term persistence across sessions — which separates this from ephemeral context. However, it does not disclose side behaviors an agent would benefit from knowing before storing overlapping or repeated memories, such as deduplication policy, overwrite behavior for identical content, or any storage limits.

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 zero filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Store a long-term memory') and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word earns its place, giving the agent maximum signal per token.

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 simple store operation with a fully-documented 5-parameter schema and no output schema, the description plus schema gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly: what to store, when, and how to configure optional fields. The only gap is the absence of any note about what the operation returns or whether duplicates are handled, which is a minor omission given the simplicity of the tool.

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 all five parameters (content, tags, source, project, importance) are already fully documented with defaults, ranges, and enums in the input schema. The description adds no param-level detail beyond the schema, but at full coverage the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Store a long-term memory') and immediately distinguishes this write operation from its sibling retrieval and management tools (recall, forget, list_memories) by stating the persistence goal — 'worth recalling in future sessions.' An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what content belongs in it.

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 second sentence provides explicit triggering conditions — use it when the user states a preference, decision, fact, or piece of context worth recalling. This is clear, concrete context for when to invoke. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., transient details that belong in session context rather than long-term memory), so it stops short of the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.

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