Store a technical decision

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool persists data durably, returns { project_id, memory_id }, and specifies a default importance. It does not explicitly state whether it creates new records or updates existing ones, but the context suggests creation. This is sufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence, followed by usage conditions, a default value note, and return format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. It is well front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has 9 parameters, 2 required, and a known output shape, the description covers the essential usage, distinguishes from the main sibling, and notes defaults. It could mention that the tool creates a new memory entry (implied but not explicit) and hint at how the output IDs are used. However, it is largely complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only minimal value by reiterating the default importance and emphasizing that the user must confirm a decision. No additional semantic meaning beyond schema is provided.

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 clearly states the tool persists durable technical decisions, listing examples (architecture choice, trade-off, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool remember_fact. The verb 'Persist' and resource 'technical decision' are specific and actionable.

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 provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' conditions, naming the alternative tool remember_fact. While it doesn't cover all siblings, it effectively prevents the most common misuse. Slightly more comprehensive inclusion of other siblings would improve it.

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