sage_remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains domain fallback behavior across node versions, the commit-then-challenge ordering for replacements, interruption safety guarantees, and fact/observation persistence across boundaries. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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 dense but each sentence adds value, from domain handling to replacement semantics to the IMPORTANT type guidance. It is on the longer side but not wasteful; a slight tightening would make it more succinct, yet the structure (normal flow, correction flow, type guidance) is logical.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical contexts: domain omission behavior, replacement safety, and type usage. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but given the complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately prepares an agent for invocation.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond property descriptions. It explains what happens when 'domain' is omitted, the semantics of 'replaces_memory_id' including commit ordering and failure behavior, and elaborates type-specific confidence and persistence characteristics that are not in 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 'Store a memory in SAGE', a clear verb+resource statement. It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like sage_forget and sage_recall by focusing on storing and by describing the replacement flow that avoids a separate forget call.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided for when to use replacement ('instead of calling sage_forget first') and for choosing type='fact' vs 'observation' with specific examples. This goes beyond generic context to give actionable usage rules and alternatives.

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