memanto_remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the existence prerequisite, the 1–10000 char content bound, all defaults (confidence 0.8, source "claude", provenance explicit_statement, memory_type fact), and the return shape (id and namespace). It does not say what happens on a missing agent, whether duplicate memories are deduplicated, or whether the write is idempotent — meaningful gaps for a mutation 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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the per-argument list is scannable and tight. The docstring scaffolding ("Args:", "Returns:") and a redundant "Returns" line despite an existing output schema cost it a point, but no individual line is padding.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite, parameter semantics, defaults, and return value — enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are behavioral rather than structural: error modes when agent_id is invalid, and duplicate/conflict handling on repeated writes.

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%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every one of the 8 parameters gets a definition, including the full closed vocabularies for memory_type (13 values) and provenance (6 values), the [0.0, 1.0] range for confidence, and the auto-derivation behavior when title is omitted. This adds substantial meaning the bare schema cannot convey, notably the enum values that the schema does not encode.

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?

"Store a typed memory for an agent" gives a concrete verb (store) and resource (typed memory), and the enumerated memory_type list makes "typed" specific rather than decorative. Against siblings like memanto_recall and memanto_recall_as_of, the store-vs-retrieve split is unmistakable without opening any schema.

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?

It states a hard prerequisite — agent_id must already exist, and points to memanto_create_agent as the way to satisfy it — which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs. It stops short of any when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. what should not be persisted, or whether repeated identical writes are desirable), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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