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 goes beyond the basic 'save' operation by explaining duplicate handling (cosine similarity threshold and reinforcement), automatic room inference from the working directory, and the importance scoring scale. These are non-obvious behaviors that an agent needs to know.

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 paragraph with five sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core action, then provides usage guidance, duplicate behavior, and room handling without any redundancy or 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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should be more thorough. It covers duplicate logic, importance, and room, but leaves the required `type` parameter completely unexplained and does not describe the return format or what the tool returns when a new memory is saved versus a duplicate. This is a significant omission for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `importance` ('from 1-10') and `room` (inferred automatically, only pass 'common' for universal memories), which is valuable. However, it does not explain the required `type` parameter or optional parameters like `tags`, `source`, and `related_ids`, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Save a new memory,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'forget' and 'recall'. It also clarifies the intent by stating it is for storing discovered facts, preferences, project status, or events.

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 guidance on when to call the tool: 'Call this whenever you discover something important during a task.' It also gives specific parameter-usage guidance for `room`, explaining when to pass it explicitly and when to omit it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use this tool.

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