remember

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

Even without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: memory is stored in one of six layers, importance can pin a memory, and pasted output is rejected unless force=true. All behavioral aspects are transparent beyond what the schema provides.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then details layers and usage. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, 4 required, 6 layers, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, layer semantics, quality check, and force flag. It is complete enough for correct selection and 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?

With 86% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: explains each layer with its purpose (WHY, WHY-THIS-NOW, USER tone, HOW, PAIN lesson, GROWTH log), clarifies the importance field for pinning, and explains the force field bypassing quality checks. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 about an entity, specifies six layers (goal, context, emotion, implementation, caveat, learning), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall, consolidate, forget, etc. The verb 'Store a memory' is specific and the resource (entity with layers) is well-defined.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('discover non-obvious goals, unexpected failures, user preferences, or decisions worth preserving') and when not to use ('pasted assistant output or CI logs are rejected'), with an alternative (force=true). Provides clear context for tool selection.

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