brain_remember

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false): it discloses that a later value with the same `about`/`attribute` REPLACES the earlier one, that recall surfaces both current and prior values, that saving is silent with no user-facing confirmation, and that decisions should be stored with a reason. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core directive, then logically grouped into identity/supersession, triggering, and silence rules. It is long for a tool description and repeats the 'use the same attribute names' point twice, but nearly every sentence carries operational guidance rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the calling contract, supersession model and the required `content` field. The main gap is the absence of any guidance on `scope` (project vs global) and on when the optional metadata params matter, which for a 20-param tool is a real but secondary omission.

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 only 60%, so the description must carry weight, and it does for the semantically tricky params: it explains `about`/`attribute` pairing, the snake_case naming convention with a failure example ('last_trip', not 'last_trip_paris'), `content` as verbatim user text, plus `entities`, `effective_at`, `supersedes_memory_id` and `memory_type`. It leaves roughly a third of the 20 params (scope, tags, modality, retention, confidence, importance, memory_class, related_memory_ids) undocumented, though the schema marks most of those 'optional; usually left empty'.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Save what the user just told you, in their own words,' which immediately separates it from brain_recall, brain_forget and brain_context. The proactive-call directive further pins down its role in the sibling set.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with concrete trigger examples ('I had kimchi fried rice today', 'my dog is called Kongi'), explicit when-not ('do not wait to be told remember this'), and an explicit anti-pattern ('do not ask whether to save it'). No alternative tool is named, but the routing conditions are unambiguous.

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