remember_turn_tool

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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that secrets/passwords/API keys are not stored and that only the user's message (not the reply) is captured, which are non-obvious filtering behaviors. However, it says nothing about persistence scope, deduplication, or how the stored fact is surfaced later.

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?

Five short lines, each front-loaded with the actionable point: purpose, trigger, argument rule, exclusions, and safety filter. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the call trigger, the argument, and the exclusions. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; only post-store behavior (dedupe, retrieval path) is left implicit.

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 0% and the single parameter is only titled 'User Message'. The description compensates by clarifying 'Pass only the user's message, not your reply', which resolves the main ambiguity about what belongs in that field.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Store durable facts from the user's own words.' It also narrows scope via the skip list (activity questions, file search, one-off tasks), which implicitly separates it from the search_* siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool the way the strongest definitions do.

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 an explicit trigger ('Call after the user tells you something about themselves, their preferences, relationships, plans...') and explicit exclusions ('Skip for activity questions, file search, and one-off tasks'). It even specifies what to pass, leaving nothing to inference.

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