remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that re-calling with the same node_id updates the existing node, explains the return value (node id), and clarifies the effect of pinned=True (prevents auto-archiving). This covers update semantics and a durability guarantee, though it does not mention side effects like overwriting on duplicate titles or any destructive actions.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information (purpose+return, update behavior, pinning). No wasted words.

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 description covers core behavior but omits essential parameter details (what body and kind do, whether title must be unique) and does not explain interaction with sibling tools like pin. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should have provided richer guidance for correct invocation, especially given the presence of a 'pin' tool that overlaps in functionality.

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. It adds meaning for node_id (used for updates) and pinned (durability control), but it gives no direct explanation for title, body, or kind. The examples (note, decision, fact) imply what title might hold, but they are not tied to parameters. This partial coverage is insufficient for a five-parameter tool.

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-resource pairing ('Store a piece of knowledge') and enumerates examples (note, decision, fact, person, client). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall and forget by clearly stating its write/update behavior, and it mentions the return value (node_id).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (storing knowledge) and a specific condition for setting pinned (durable knowledge that should never be auto-archived). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like pin or recall or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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