remember

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive local write. The description's only added behavioral fact is "local memory", which corroborates the openWorldHint. Nothing is said about persistence across sessions, duplicate handling, or whether an existing entry is overwritten or appended.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and persistence detail noted elsewhere.

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?

The tool is simple (no output schema, no nesting), so the bar is modest, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a memory-write tool the agent needs to know write granularity and tag purpose to use it well, and neither is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and does not. It does not say whether content should be a single atomic fact or a paragraph, nor what tags are for (retrieval? filtering? free-form?), leaving the agent to guess at write granularity.

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?

Specific verb + resource: "Save a fact, preference or decision to local memory" tells the agent exactly what gets written and where. It is clearly distinct from the sibling names recall and forget by implication, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them or names the inverse operations.

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 enumerated content types (fact, preference, decision) imply what is worth storing, and the sibling set (recall, forget) makes the write/read/delete split inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus simply answering, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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