solucortex_remember

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

Beyond the annotations' write hint, it discloses that the memory is stored with status 'approved' and traced, requires a Bearer api_key, and imposes a handling policy for secrets. This is meaningful behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the trigger condition follows, and the secret-handling policy is compact but complete.

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 a 100%-covered input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the write/safety profile, the description covers the remaining contextual need: when to call it and how to handle secrets. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds extra semantic guidance for the content field: if a secret is found, record location/type/severity and action taken with a redacted reference. This is a modest but real addition beyond the schema's 'NEVER include real secrets' note.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Record a memory in SoluCortex (POST /memories)') and makes the write intent unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling retrieval tools solucortex_recall, solucortex_search, and solucortex_list_memories.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call when closing a task or making a relevant technical decision.' It does not explicitly exclude retrieval or name sibling alternatives, but the when-to-use guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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