remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that only confirmed information should be saved and that unconfirmed data is not stored, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what happens to existing entries with the same name or content (overwrite vs. append), or the persistence scope (session vs. long-term), which are important behavioral traits for a memory tool.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear instruction followed by a critical constraint. It front-loads the purpose and gives a direct command. No wasted words, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) is fine for a short description. The constraint is placed after the purpose, which is effective.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the key requirement (confirmed: true). It includes the enum values for 'type' implicitly, but leaves out details like how the tool handles duplicates, the nature of 'project' (optional?), and what the return value is. It's sufficient for basic use but lacks depth for edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'confirmed' parameter (must be true) and lists the possible 'type' values in the description, but doesn't clarify the meaning of 'content' or 'project'. The enum for 'type' is in the schema, but the description repeats it in natural language, adding some redundancy. The description adds value for 'confirmed' but not much for other parameters.

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 tool stores long-term preferences, rules, decisions, facts, todos, or notes, with a specific requirement that they be user-confirmed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like load_context (retrieval) and record_experience (experience) by focusing on explicit user confirmations. However, it doesn't explicitly name the siblings, but the verb 'remember' and the listed content types provide sufficient clarity.

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 implies when to use: when the user has explicitly confirmed a fact or preference, and warns not to save model speculation. It provides a clear condition (confirmed: true) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'record_experience' or 'update_project'. The context is implied rather than spelled out, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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