chronomem_remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic entity resolution and superseding of previous beliefs, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what 'superseding' means operationally (does it happen automatically without supersedes_id?), whether it requires permissions, or how it interacts with chronomem_supersede. The disclosure is useful but incomplete for a mutation operation.

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, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (what it does, key behaviors).

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 no output schema, the description should ideally explain return behavior or side effects. It covers the main action and two behavioral traits but omits prerequisites, error cases, and how automatic superseding interacts with the supersedes_id parameter. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema, including content, tags, category, and supersedes_id. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no guidance on when to use supersedes_id vs automatic superseding). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Store) and resource (durable fact in bi-temporal memory), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like chronomem_supersede, which also deals with fact replacement — the mention of 'superseding previous beliefs' overlaps with that sibling, creating some ambiguity about when to use which.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description doesn't say when to prefer this over chronomem_supersede or how it relates to chronomem_recall. It implies storage but leaves alternative selection to inference, which is risky given multiple siblings handling memory operations.

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