Remember a fact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the most important behavior: memory persists across sessions and processes. But it does not explain what happens if the same fact is added multiple times, whether overwrites/corrections replace existing memory, or what the tool returns or fails on.

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 relatively tight and front-loaded with the core action. The list of example memory types is somewhat redundant with the phrase 'worth carrying forward,' but each sentence still contributes to deciding when and what to invoke.

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 simple write/mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient operational context: what to store, when to call, and the persistence guarantee. It lacks minor detail about edge cases or return behavior, but is likely adequate for an agent to call 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 schema already defines content, tags, and importance. The description adds mild guidance about what kind of content should be stored (preferences, corrections, decisions), but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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's action ('Store a durable fact, preference, decision, or correction') and its outcome ('FUTURE sessions remember it'). It is distinguishably an add/write operation compared to siblings like memory_search and memory_forget, though it never names these siblings explicitly.

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 clear triggering context: 'Call this whenever the user states something worth carrying forward' and lists examples like preferences, facts, and corrections. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly point to alternative tools like memory_search or memory_forget.

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