memory_remember

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

Beyond the annotation idempotentHint=false (indicating non-idempotent behavior), the description adds no behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or what happens on repeated calls, which is critical for a state-mutating 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 description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points, parameter explanations). While it wastes no words, it also fails to provide essential information, making it minimally adequate in conciseness.

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's complexity (many required params, 0% schema coverage), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what each parameter does, the return value (though output schema exists), or any constraints. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters (5 required), the description fails to explain any parameter. It does not even hint at the roles of projectId, type, title, content, sourceKind, etc., making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 'persist' and lists the types of memory items (fact, decision, etc.), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory_list' or 'memory_update_status', though the verb 'persist' implies creation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_list, memory_update_status). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues to help an agent decide.

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