remember_fact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states this is a write operation ('record') but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or what happens on duplicates. There is no output schema and no mention of return values or error conditions.

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 sentence with 12 words, which is concise. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be restructured to avoid the inaccurate listing of parameters. Still, it earns a high score for brevity relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate. It does not explain what 'memory fact' means, how facts are stored or retrieved, or any behavioral constraints. The tool has only three parameters, but the description fails to fully specify the action and its effects, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. However, the description mentions 'metadata' and 'entity links' that are not in the schema, adding confusion rather than value. For the existing parameters, the description does not add any detail beyond what the schema provides, and the misleading extra terms lower the score.

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 uses 'Record a repository-scoped memory fact', which clearly states the action and resource. However, it adds 'with metadata, entity links, and confidence parameters', but the schema only includes 'confidence' (plus 'source' and 'text'), making the description partially misleading. It is not a tautology, but it is not fully accurate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_memory. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or related tools. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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