roam_remember

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

Annotations are all false, providing no behavioral safety hints (e.g., readOnlyHint=false implies a write, but no further detail). The description compensates by disclosing that the tool writes to the daily page, applies a tag and optional categories, and includes a markdown syntax warning to avoid formatting errors. It does not mention permission requirements or rate limits, but for a write tool with no other annotation coverage, it adds substantial behavioral context.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a detailed markdown note and a prerequisite warning. While the markdown note is verbose, it provides essential usage guidance. The structure is front-loaded and the additional paragraphs earn their place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, storage location, tag behavior, and prerequisite calls, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not mention heading or parent_uid options, but these are fully described in the schema. Given the high schema coverage and output schema, the description is adequately complete, though it could briefly note that headings/parent_uid can organize memories.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the storage behavior (daily page + tag), the optionality of categories, and a detailed markdown note relevant to formatting memory content and categories. However, the phrase '(unless include_memories_tag is false)' is ambiguous, potentially implying categories are also omitted when the tag is disabled, which conflicts with the schema's separate handling.

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 action ('Add a memory or piece of information to remember') and specifies the storage location (daily page with ROAM_MEMORIES_TAG tag). This distinguishes it from siblings like roam_add_todo (adds tasks) and roam_recall (retrieves memories).

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 provides clear context for use (storing memories) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a prerequisite instruction to call roam_get_guidelines and load the markdown cheatsheet, but lacks exclusionary guidance such as 'use roam_add_todo for tasks' or 'use roam_recall to fetch memories.'

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