remember

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: it states memory is durable and persisted for future sessions, and it imposes content constraints (self-contained, single fact). While it doesn't mention side effects like storage limits or overwrites, the tool is conceptually simple and the description adequately covers the behavioral profile.

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 longer than two sentences but every sentence serves a purpose: defining the action, giving trigger scenarios, specifying content format, and listing exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and stays focused. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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-only tool with no output schema, this description is thorough. It explains the tool's role, content guidelines, defaults, and even provides a concrete example. The absence of return-value documentation is acceptable since there is no output schema, and the schema already documents the parameters. A small gap is not explaining how 'tags' interrelate, but that's a minor omission.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the desired format of 'text' (self-contained, one fact, with example), and by clarifying the 'project' default ('defaults to notes'), which mirrors the schema but reinforces practical usage. It doesn't mention tags, but the schema already describes them. This enriches beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Store one durable decision or conclusion') and immediately explains the intended scope (durable, for future sessions). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly framing this as the writing counterpart to recall, using concrete trigger phrases like 'remember this' and 'don't forget.'

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 examples (after a decision, bug resolved, user asks to remember) and clear when-not-to-use exclusions (no transcripts, routine conversation, or code-obvious facts). This is strong operational guidance with no ambiguity.

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