mesh_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 discloses that deposits are shared, not private, not encrypted, and that short deposits won't silently produce zero chunks. It also references consistency with sibling tools (mesh_say, mesh_open_room) regarding privacy. This covers key behavioral traits, though it omits details like error handling or idempotency.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds practical usage guidance and warnings. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical: purpose, usage, then caveats. No fluff or redundancy.

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 write operation with moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, privacy, and a key limitation (zero chunks). It does not mention what happens on success/failure (e.g., whether it returns a confirmation), but this is less critical for a deposit tool. The essential context for correct usage 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 covers all 4 parameters (100%), so the schema already explains each. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond reinforcing content suitability (e.g., 'in your own words' and 'don't deposit anything you wouldn't want read'), which is more usage guidance than parameter explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Deposit'), a specific resource ('mesh's shared memory (hecate-rag)'), and an explicit effect ('becomes searchable via mesh_recall for any agent'). It also distinguishes itself from raw document ingestion, making the purpose unmistakable and clearly separate from siblings like mesh_say or mesh_recall.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Short deposits (a sentence or two) are fine' and 'designed for conversational snippets' versus raw document ingestion. It also warns against sensitive content. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it (e.g., 'use mesh_put for large docs'), relying on inference from the distinction.

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