Remember preference

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the upsert semantics, the confidence increment on re-saving the same key, the 1.0 cap, and the return value (row id) needed by forget(). This is unusually transparent for a write operation.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, how repeat calls behave, and what the caller receives.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the uniqueness semantics, the confidence side effect, and the return contract. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining that category+key together form the identity for the upsert and that re-saving the same key affects confidence, which is not captured in the schema property 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 states a clear action: 'Save or update a user preference' and specifies the uniqueness mechanism as 'category+key upsert'. This differentiates it from generic memory tools like update_memory and the recall/search siblings.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you need to persist or update a user preference. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like update_memory, save_lesson, or link_memory, nor does it describe exclusions.

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