Remember a Review

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a named re-save REPLACES the prior record while an unnamed re-save APPENDS. That replacement semantics is exactly the kind of nuance the annotations don't convey (destructiveHint=false would not warn an agent that a named write overwrites), and it is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads what is saved and immediately follows with the replace/append contrast, which is the decision-critical fact. The closing line ('The more you save, the more the system understands...') is motivational filler rather than operational detail and could be dropped.

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?

With an output schema, full annotations, and 83% param coverage, the description carries only the semantic load and mostly does: write mode, replacement vs append, and the correction use case. The one gap is no stated relationship to recall/remember_decision, which matters given four siblings.

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 already high at 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description still adds meaning: name toggles the feature-vs-note mode and its re-save behavior, and 'the same entities' ties the append rule to the entities parameter. It does not add anything for artifact/entity_id_scheme, but those are well documented in the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Save a durable review about geometry') and partitions the input space into named feature vs plain note. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, remember_decision, leaving the agent to infer which save tool applies.

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?

Gives usable when-to guidance: supply a name for reusable semantic groups like 'mounting holes', omit it for a plain note, and use re-remembering to correct the AI. It stops short of naming alternatives (recall, remember_decision) or exclusions, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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