remember_goal

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions persistence across sessions and per-character storage, which are useful. However, it does not specify duplicate handling, overwrite semantics, or any confirmation/return behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key action, and every sentence adds meaningful value. Examples are compact and the usage guidance is crisp.

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 a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and persistence scope. However, it could be more complete by addressing what happens on duplicate goals or how the stored goals can be retrieved, leaving some ambiguity for a new agent.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'goal' parameter ('The goal in the player's own terms, one ambition per call'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds illustrative examples and the notion of a 'direction worth steering toward later,' which slightly enriches context but does not fundamentally extend the schema.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('save') and resource ('goal or ambition'), and includes concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like recall_pilot_notes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call this whenever the player expresses a direction worth steering toward later.' This gives clear context on when to use it, but it omits any exclusions or alternatives when another tool might be more appropriate.

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