memory_remember

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that no sampling is invoked, which is helpful, but omits many behavioral traits: whether the proposal is persisted, whether it can be retrieved later, if it triggers side effects, or any rate limits. With 0 annotation coverage, more detail is expected.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. However, it is too concise for the complexity: 10 parameters and no schema descriptions demand more informative prose. Front-loading is fine but content is lacking.

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 10 parameters, 1 required, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain any parameter's role, the meaning of 'memory proposal', or how this integrates with other memory tools. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to provide essential context for correct invocation.

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 0% — no property descriptions exist. The description adds zero information about the 10 parameters (kind, tags, scope, strength, etc.). For a high-parameter tool, this is critically insufficient.

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 the tool creates a pending memory proposal without sampling, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_observe (which might record observations) or memory_recall (retrieval). The verb 'create' is clear, but the resource 'memory proposal' is somewhat vague without context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when to prefer this over memory_observe or memory_resolve. The agent receives no decision support.

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