remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: memory is typed, carries confidence/provenance, and content is capped at 10000 characters. However, it does not mention behavior on duplicate storage, overwrite semantics, or what happens on failure, which are relevant for a persistence tool.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes: purpose, usage trigger, behavioral features, and content length constraint. No unnecessary filler.

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 complexity (8 params, enums, output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and key constraints well. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit handling of duplicates/overwrites, but this is a minor gap for a store operation with optional tags and provenance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why parameters like type, confidence, and provenance exist ('so later retrievals can rank and filter intelligently') and emphasizes the atomicity expected in content ('store atomic, self-contained statements'), enriching beyond the schema's individual 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 opens with 'Store a single piece of information in the agent's long-term memory,' which clearly identifies the verb (store), resource (long-term memory), and scope (single piece). It distinguishes from siblings like recall (retrieval) and batch_remember (batch storage) through the explicit 'single piece' phrasing.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever the user shares a stable fact, preference, decision, goal, or instruction you should recall in a future conversation.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies it is for single-item storage versus retrieval or batch, which is sufficient.

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