remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the system 'will figure out how to store it based on the table structure,' hinting at automated processing, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'store'), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and input expectations, with no wasted words.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits like mutability. For a memory storage tool that likely performs writes, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 both parameters ('table' and 'memory') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing 'plain English' for the memory parameter and suggesting inclusion of 'who, what, when, context, etc.,' but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Store a new memory') and resource ('memory'), specifying that it's stored based on table structure. It distinguishes from sibling 'forget' (deletion) and 'recall' (retrieval), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'process' or 'process_answers' tools, which might have overlapping memory-related functions.

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 minimal guidance: 'Describe what you want to remember in plain English.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forget' or 'recall', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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