khwan_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 clearly states what happens inside the tool: it stores a fact, makes no model call, outlives the context window, and is later reachable via `khwan_recall`. It also describes the return shape (`stored` and `reason` when not persisted).

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 front-loaded with its core purpose, then gives the strongest usage signal, then provides parameter and return semantics. Every section adds operational value; the relatively longer 'Reach for this' paragraph is justified because it tells the model exactly when to invoke the tool, not just why it exists.

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 has exactly one parameter and an output schema, so the required usage surface here is small. The description covers persistence semantics, return value, and a sibling relationship (`khwan_recall`). It gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly without needing to infer anything essential.

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%, but the description's Args section fully compensates: it defines `fact` as a durable rule or preference that must stand alone. It reinforces the meaning with a concrete example contrasting a standalone rule with an unusable utterance. This is ample semantic guidance for a single string parameter.

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 is centered on a specific verb and resource: "Persist a durable fact/preference" so future sessions can recall it, and it explicitly says it stores `fact` in the brain with no model call. It distinguishes itself from the prepare→record loop and states it is available to the next `khwan_recall`, which removes ambiguity versus siblings.

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 a very explicit usage trigger: "Reach for this the moment you are corrected." It also contrasts this tool with the more elaborate prepare→record loop, and the 'standing RULE, not the utterance' guidance tells the agent how to phrase the fact. This is far more than a generic call-to-action.

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