brain_remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that memories are auto-linked via tags ('Tag every memory so the brain can auto-link it to related knowledge across all brains') and that memory compounds ('every memory you write makes the next session smarter'). It does not detail failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple write tool, this is sufficient context.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains useful behavioral guidance. The final sentence about compounding is slightly motivational but still informs the agent of the tool's value. No filler or redundancy.

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 write tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context (when to use, tagging behavior, persistence). It does not explain return values, but the absence of an output schema reduces that need. It is complete for the agent's immediate decision to call the tool, though it could include a brief example.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a general directive to 'Tag every memory' consistent with the tags parameter, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 'Write a memory to the brain' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling read/search tools by emphasizing it is a continuous write operation, and the context signals show it is the memory-writing sibling among query-like tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Do this CONTINUOUSLY as you work — not at the end' and lists trigger conditions ('When the operator makes a decision, shares a preference, or you learn something useful'). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, which would push it to a 5.

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