Remember In Aionis

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only says 'Store ... through the SDK governed observe path.' It omits what happens to stored memory, whether it is persisted, how it can be retrieved or forgotten, and what access/visibility implications exist. The opaque 'observe path' terminology obscures rather than clarifies the behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It loses points only because the tail phrase 'through the SDK governed observe path' is compact but unhelpfully jargon-heavy, and the overall brevity comes at the cost of meaningful content.

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?

For a 20-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the memory classification dimensions (kind, tier), scoping and ownership (scope, tenant, owner_*), or lifecycle behavior (lifecycle_state), leaving an agent unable to make informed decisions about which optional fields to populate.

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?

The input schema has 20 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description names none of them. The schema's type/enum information is insufficient to understand the meaning and purpose of fields like kind, tier, scope, salience, lifecycle_state, or owner_* fields. The description makes no effort to compensate for this gap.

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 states a specific action ('Store ... project memory') and a resource type ('ordinary project memory'), which makes the basic purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from forget/session tools by being the memory-write operation, though it does not clarify what makes memory 'ordinary' or how this relates to sibling tools like aionis_feedback or aionis_rehydrate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'through the SDK governed observe path' hints at a constrained context but does not explain when this path is appropriate, whether a session must be active, or when to prefer sibling tools such as aionis_guide, aionis_feedback, or aionis_rehydrate.

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