remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool scrubs secrets/PII, returns immediately while indexing in the background, and that overwrite replaces existing data. These are important behavioral traits beyond what the schema reveals.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, usage note, behavioral note, and an Args list. Every section earns its place; there is no fluff. The length is appropriate given the 8 parameters and the need to convey background indexing and PII scrubbing.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, background behavior, sibling alternatives), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, alternatives, return semantics, data handling, and parameter meanings. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds value for 'overwrite' ('If true, replace existing data'), 'format_hint' (lists options), and 'memory_type' (lists classifications). However, several parameters like 'content' and 'document_name' only restate their names, so the compensation is not complete.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Remember inline text content: chunk, embed, and index for search.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ingest' by stating 'Use this instead of ingest when you have the text content directly.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of ingest when you have the text content directly (e.g., clipboard, API response, or sandbox-uploaded files in Claude Desktop).' It names the alternative tool and gives concrete example scenarios, fulfilling the guideline dimension thoroughly.

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