remember

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

The annotations already show this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds the useful side effect that the calling client is recorded as actor. It does not disclose potential duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, scoping effects, or consequences beyond that. The added detail is meaningful but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the core action and an important side effect with no filler. It is as concise as a useful description can be.

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?

The definition is too thin for correct invocation: it omits parameter semantics, has no output schema, and gives no route to sibling memory operations. Even though the tool is conceptually simple, an agent needs more context about kind/sensitivity and when to store versus correct or forget.

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%, so the description has the full burden of explaining statement, kind, and sensitivity, but mentions none of them. An agent cannot infer what values to supply for kind and sensitivity from this text.

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 names a specific action ('Store') and resource ('confirmed local memory'), clearly distinguishing it from retrieval tools like memory_search and deletion tools like forget. The phrase 'calling client is recorded as actor' further pins down what this tool does. It loses the fifth point because it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or define what 'confirmed' means.

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?

Aside from implying that the memory should be 'confirmed' and 'local', there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over memory_correct, memory_feedback, or forget. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.

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