sage_remember

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains key behaviors: persistence across conversations, confidence decay, and cross-provider visibility for facts. Missing side effects or prerequisites, but the main behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence and logical flow. It is slightly verbose in listing examples but remains focused and efficient.

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 no output schema, but the description covers purpose and key parameter details. It does not mention return values, which is a minor gap for a storage operation. Overall, it is complete for the complexity level.

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?

The description significantly enriches parameter meanings beyond the schema. It explains the 'type' parameter in detail, suggests confidence values, and provides examples for each type, making parameter usage much clearer.

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 the tool stores a memory in SAGE with specific verb and resource. It mentions persisting across conversations but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like sage_list or sage_forget, though the uniqueness is implied.

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 provides detailed guidance on when to use fact versus observation types, with concrete examples. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but internal usage distinctions are strong.

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