remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses multi-sync storage, auto-embedding, and the ability to reference other memories. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a create operation, the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 concise at three sentences, each sentence adds value: first sentence states core function, second gives usage trigger, third explains advanced features (references, category, scope). No redundant words.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not describe return values or success/failure, but for a simple storage tool, the information provided is sufficient for an AI agent to use 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the category values (user/project/process/agent) and scope values (user/project/session), and notes that content can reference other memories. It does not detail title or tags beyond their names, but adds significant value overall.

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 the tool stores a persistent memory (verb+resource) with specific storage backends and auto-embedding. It distinguishes from siblings like recall and forget by providing usage triggers (when user says 'remember/note/save'). The purpose is specific and clear.

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 states when to call the tool (when user says certain phrases). It implies context for use but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like update_memory. However, the sibling list provides differentiation, and the trigger phrases are helpful guidelines.

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