remember

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

The description discloses the auto-expiry behavior via ttl_seconds and default importance score, which go beyond the minimal annotation (destructiveHint: false). However, it does not discuss idempotency, overwriting, or scope (e.g., global vs. per space).

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 concise: one sentence summary followed by a clear 'Args:' list. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers all parameters, return value, and auto-expiry. It lacks clarification on storage scope (global vs. per space) and limits, but overall is satisfactory.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides crucial semantics: observation as content, tags for categorization, importance range 1-10, context string, and ttl_seconds for auto-expiry. It also specifies defaults and purpose, significantly adding value beyond the schema's titles.

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 'Store a memory observation in Novyx,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'forget' (delete) and 'recall' (retrieve).

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 implicitly indicates usage for storing memories, but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives like 'forget' or 'recall.' No exclusion criteria or contexts are mentioned.

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