remember

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does real work by enumerating the outcome actions (created, updated, duplicate, unchanged, needs_review) and by warning that needs_review means nothing was saved — a genuinely useful behavioral fact. It still omits whether force overrides the needs_review path, what permissions or scope limits apply, and whether writes are reversible.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical glosses on topic_key and needs_review each add real meaning rather than restating the name. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration is partly redundant, though it usefully explains what the action field means. For a 7-parameter write tool with zero annotations and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves too much unexplained — especially force and how it interacts with the needs_review branch.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only topic_key (same topic_key leads to 'updated') and leaves force, kind, tags, project, title, and content completely undefined — notably force, whose semantics determine whether needs_review can be bypassed.

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 and resource ("Save a memory") plus the scope that matters most, persistence into "future sessions." It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as update_memory or supersede, so an agent cannot fully rule out the alternatives from the text alone, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer usage from "for future sessions," but the definition never says whether to prefer this over update_memory, supersede, or review when a memory already exists — the more important routing question for this toolset.

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