capture_fact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses immediate server-side storage, batch processing during consolidation, and detailed deduplication behavior (same-session immediate drop, cross-session rejection at consolidation). It adequately conveys side effects and timing without hiding any obvious operational details.

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 spans three paragraphs and repeats deduplication information across the second and third paragraphs. While structured and readable, it could be tightened by merging overlapping statements without losing key guidance.

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 lack of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input semantics, storage behavior, and deduplication. It covers the asynchronous consolidation aspect and references get_schemas for domain exploration, making the tool's behavior fully understandable in context. Minor gaps like error handling or return behavior are absent but not critical here.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra guidance beyond the schema, such as explaining that domain_hint is not a fixed list (referencing get_schemas) and that importance is high for medical/safety versus low for casual preferences, which clarifies parameter usage beyond the short schema descriptions.

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 'Store a durable fact worth remembering across sessions' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from ephemeral statements. It effectively differentiates this write tool from sibling query and event tools by focusing on stable knowledge.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this proactively whenever you learn something this store should keep') and when-not-to-use ('Ignore ephemeral statements'). It also reassures frequent use with latency and deduplication notes, though it does not directly compare to alternative sibling tools like log_event.

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