remember_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it usefully discloses that data is 'Stored in a local file only,' which tells the agent this is a local, non-synced write. It omits whether re-recording an existing component overwrites or errors, whether the action is idempotent, and any permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the storage caveat follows immediately, so both key facts land before any schema inspection.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description explains the purpose but nothing about the required fields or the effect of storing a component locally. It is not sufficient on its own to call the tool 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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage means the schema documents no parameter at all, and the description adds no meaning for componentName, import, description, sourcePath, or componentSource. The agent must infer each field's role and format entirely on its own.

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?

States a specific verb (Record) and resource (a component) plus its precise scope: components that exist in code but are not yet deployed to Storybook. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_pending_components, forget_component, and get_component without needing to name them.

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 condition for use is explicit ('exists in code but is not yet in the deployed Storybook') and the benefit is stated ('so catalog and validation tools include it'). No when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., scaffold_story) are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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