Remember-Memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Stores a memory' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, how conflicts are handled, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memory', how the storage works, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so all 4 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional tags' and 'specified category' which partially covers 2 parameters, but doesn't explain 'data' or 'is_global' at all. The description adds some value but doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Stores') and resource ('a memory'), and specifies additional attributes ('with optional tags in a specified category'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_memories' by focusing on storage rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'remove_memory_category' or 'remove_specific_memory' beyond the verb choice.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_memories' or the removal tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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