Remember Project Facts

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

The description explains update behavior ('Pass an id inside data to update an existing entry, or omit it to add a new one') and requires an open project. Annotations lack specific behavioral hints beyond readOnly/write, so the description adds useful context without contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples. Every sentence is useful; no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description effectively explains what to store and how to use the parameters. It could mention the return value (e.g., confirmation), but the key behaviors are covered.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining how to update vs create via the 'id' field in data, and the memoryType enum is described. This aids correct parameter usage beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose: to store or update facts in persistent memory. It lists concrete examples (character profile, world-building detail, plot thread, style-guide entry) and distinguishes from sibling 'recall' for reading.

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 explicitly mentions when to use a sibling tool ('Use recall to read memory back') and states a prerequisite ('Requires an open project'). It does not list scenarios to avoid, but the context from sibling names makes alternatives clear.

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