booboo_remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: writes to an append-only journal, is immediately queryable, and survives rebuilds. It also gives style guidance for embedding node links. These go beyond a simple 'persist' and provide meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover potential duplicates or error conditions.

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, all of which earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the storage and durability model, and the third gives a content style tip. It is front-loaded with the primary objective and contains no redundancy or fluff.

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 that this is a write tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, durability, queryability, and one content guideline. It does not detail relationships between bucket/agent/kind, but those are described in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by suggesting `[[node-id]]` link formatting within the text, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters (kind, text, agent, title, bucket). The description does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a memory to the brain' and elaborates with 'durable, atomic fact/decision worth recalling later.' It clearly distinguishes this write tool from the sibling read/query tools by emphasizing storage and persistence rather than retrieval or analysis.

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?

Clear context is provided: this tool is for storing a single, durable fact that should be queryable later. The mention of 'append-only journal' and 'survives every rebuild' implies long-term persistence. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the sibling tool names make the contrast obvious.

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