user_memory_remember

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

Annotations only include idempotentHint: false, and the description adds minimal behavioral context. 'Persist' implies a write operation, but there is no mention of side effects (e.g., overwriting, notifications), permissions needed, or whether the operation is reversible. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence of 8 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it sacrifices completeness; a second sentence for usage guidance would improve it without losing 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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, 4 required, and a write mutation, this description is too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites, parameter constraints, or behavioral outcomes beyond persistence. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The phrase 'explicit cross-project scope' hints at scopeLevel and scopeRef, but the agent gets no guidance on how to set values like confidence, sourceKind, or supersedesId.

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 uses a specific verb ('persist') and resource ('user-level memory'), and adds 'reviewed' and 'explicit cross-project scope' to differentiate from siblings like memory_remember and user_memory_list. However, 'reviewed' is ambiguous and could be clarified to distinguish from candidate acceptance tools.

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 implies usage for persisting reviewed user-level memories with cross-project scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like memory_remember or user_memory_list, nor does it provide when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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