remember

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions optional context and importance scoring but does not describe side effects (e.g., overwrites on duplicate?), permissions, or return value. No contradiction exists, but the description is incomplete for a mutation 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, efficient sentence that covers the core purpose and hints at key optional parameters. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens on success/failure, the tool's role within the broader memory ecosystem (e.g., vs. 'consolidate'), or how returned data is structured. Minimal but adequate for a simple storage operation.

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%, and the description briefly references 'optional context and importance scoring', tying to the context and importance parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the shortcuts parameter's parsing behavior or how metadata is used, though the schema itself is detailed. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage; the additional mention nudges it to 4.

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 it stores a new memory and mentions optional context and importance scoring, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' (retrieval) and 'forget' (deletion). The verb 'store' and noun 'memory' are specific, though it could better differentiate from 'agent_memory' or 'consolidate'.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'recall' or 'consolidate'. The description implies usage for storing new memories but does not state when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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