mnemos_remember

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by stressing durability ('recalling in a future session') and by excluding content already in the codebase/CLAUDE.md. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like dedupication, overwriting, or failure modes. For a simple store operation this is adequate but not thorough.

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 tight and front-loaded: it opens with the essential action and object, then gives examples and exclusions. There is no fluff or redundant content; every phrase earns its place. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: what to store, why to store it, and what not to store. It could mention whether repeated stores are idempotent or whether there are size limits, but these are not essential for basic correct invocation. Overall it is complete enough for the agent to use 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?

The schema provides no description for 'fact' and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well by defining what 'fact' should contain (stated preferences, decisions with reasoning, recurring conventions) and what to exclude. This gives the agent meaningful guidance beyond the parameter name, though no concrete example or length/format is given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') with a clear resource ('a durable fact worth recalling') and gives concrete examples ('stated preference, a decision and its reasoning, a recurring convention'). It also states what it is not for ('routine task details', 'anything already in the codebase/CLAUDE.md'), making it easily distinguishable from the sibling retrieval tools like mnemos_recall and mnemos_list_memories.

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 clear inclusion criteria (durable, future-worthy, preferences/decisions/conventions) and explicit exclusion criteria ('Not routine task details, not anything already in the codebase/CLAUDE.md'). It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the when-to-use guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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