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 so richly: notes survive session restarts and context loss, one notebook per game/seat keyed by leader/civ/map/capital, latest notes appear in finish_turn output, the refusal semantics on tag mismatch ("refused with `stored_tag` and writes nothing"), empty-tag fallback, retag override, and that the result carries `previous`. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core action and examples before the persistence/hook explanation and the replace semantics, so an agent gets the gist immediately. The parenthetical examples are dense but earn their place by showing tag usage; only mild compression could improve it.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, yet the description covers persistence, storage keying, the finish_turn integration, tag grouping, replace/retag semantics and refusal behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: tag is explained as a grouping concept, replace_id as in-place rewrite of an existing note, retag as the flag permitting a tag change, and text via worked examples. Every parameter's meaning and edge-case behavior is documented beyond the bare schema.

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 ("Write a note to my notebook for this game") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling memory tools (recall/forget) by describing persistence and keying. An agent can tell this is the write-side of a notebook primitive without opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete context and examples of what to store (plan, promise, threat, rationale) and states a temporal constraint ("Usable while it is not my turn"), plus that notes ride along in every finish_turn result. It stops short of explicitly naming recall/forget as the read/delete alternatives, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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