remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a write operation and that it either creates or appends, but says nothing about permissions/scope requirements, reversibility, or that the 'replaces' path silently sets the prior memory's valid_to to now. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, and no redundant filler. Nothing needs trimming.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition leans almost entirely on the schema. It covers the core action but omits selection guidance against siblings and the consequence of destructive-ish paths (replaces superseding old memories), leaving the agent under-prepared for a moderately complex write tool.

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 100%, so parameter meaning is already fully documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light gloss ('session context or permanent knowledge') that roughly mirrors the memory_type enum already 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 specific verb (write) and resource (memory in RecallVault) and clarifies the two content categories: session context vs permanent knowledge. It also discloses the create-or-append duality, which helps distinguish it from recall/archive_memory. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (update_memory) as an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to call remember versus update_memory, memory_import, or set_memory_priority. The 'creates new entry or appends to existing' phrasing hints at the append_to path but leaves the agent to infer selection criteria from the schema.

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