remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals meaningful traits: the daemon scrubs secrets/PII before indexing, the call returns immediately, and indexing happens in the background. It also documents overwrite semantics. However, it does not clarify what happens when overwrite is false and a document already exists, so a small behavioral gap remains.

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 and efficient: a front-loaded usage statement, a sibling differentiation line, a behavioral note, and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 eight parameters and absent annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, how routing works, what memory_type values are valid, overwrite behavior, and the asynchronous background-indexing model. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required from the description.

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 must compensate, and it does. The Args block explains every parameter, including collection routing based on agent_handle and the special reservation of 'lesson' for the learn tool. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a precise use condition — 'Use remember when you learn something durable' — and names the specific kinds of content it handles (decision, gotcha, fact, procedure). It also explicitly contrasts remember with ingest and learn, so the agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings.

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 states clearly when to use the tool and gives direct routing guidance for alternatives: 'remember = a specific durable fact, ingest = a URL, learn = a distilled lesson that gets retrieval preference.' This removes ambiguity about tool selection.

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