remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says memories are 'durable' and include 'freshness metadata,' but does not explain persistence semantics, conflict handling (though the schema mentions key conflicts), required permissions, or what happens on write. This is insufficient disclosure for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a 12-parameter mutation tool, such extreme brevity leaves the structure underpowered even if it is technically concise.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 8% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It states the tool's broad purpose but omits parameter meanings, usage context, and behavioral details needed to call 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?

There are 12 parameters with only 8% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate heavily. It merely echoes the 'type' enum values and vaguely gestures at 'freshness metadata'; it does not explain key, tags, scope, source, metadata, confidence, depends_on, expires_at, valid_from, or review_after.

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 ('Store') and resource ('durable fact, assumption, decision...') and enumerates the memory types, making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as supersede, invalidate, recall, or track_source, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like recall, supersede, or invalidate, nor does it state prerequisites or preferred contexts for storing a new durable memory.

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