remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the upsert semantics (merge vs overwrite) and the default behavior. However, it does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the entity must exist for certain operations).

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the action and the key behavioral nuance. Every word is necessary, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema, shallow nesting), the description covers the essential behavior. Missing details like error handling or return value are acceptable given the scope, but the description could be slightly more explicit about creation vs update behavior for new entities.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Upsert' and the resource 'entity in the memory graph', and explains the merge vs overwrite behavior based on the 'upsert' parameter. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' (read) and 'forget' (delete) without ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'store_decision' (which might be more specific) or 'link' (for relationships). The description only explains the mechanism, not the selection criteria.

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