amem_remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses persistence/local-only scope, the privacy isolation guarantee of `private`, the effect of supersession ('stops being served'), and the shape of the response field `possiblySupersedes`. It omits permission/auth requirements, duplicate handling, and whether a failed supersede id is rejected.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the privacy rule, then the supersession workflow. No filler and every clause carries actionable information.

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?

For a 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the privacy dimension, the supersession path, and the one response field that requires follow-up action. The unexplained `anchors` and `workspace` parameters are the remaining gap.

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 only 20% (just `supersedes` is documented), and the description meaningfully compensates for `kind` and `supersedes` with the private-anchor rule and the replace-an-older-fact semantics. However, `anchors`, `workspace`, and `text` receive no explanation anywhere, leaving roughly half the parameters semantically opaque.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Store a durable local fact in amem') and immediately scopes it as local-only. It also names the sibling tool (amem_supersede) reserved for retiring memories, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives three concrete selection rules: use kind/anchor `private` for personal non-work facts, pass old claim ids in `supersedes` when the fact replaces an older one, and route look-alikes surfaced in `possiblySupersedes` to amem_supersede. The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are stated explicitly.

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