remember

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

Despite minimal annotation detail, the description richly discloses behavior: exact-once write semantics with idempotency_key and version-specific engine behavior, batch key scoping, error conditions on key mismatch, backdating semantics for created_at, and the warning about temporal history distortion. This adds significant context beyond the annotations, which only state readOnlyHint=false and related booleans.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering use cases, modes, parameter semantics, and version-specific behaviors. It is front-loaded with the purpose and WHEN TO USE, uses clear headers, and includes compact examples. The density is justified by the tool's complexity (14 parameters, 3 modes).

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 complex write tool with 14 parameters and no required fields, the description provides comprehensive guidance: all parameters explained, mode selection, idempotency details, backdating semantics, and version notes. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the description handles the remaining context thoroughly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in meaningful terms: types, defaults, value ranges (importance 0-1, valence -1 to 1), example values, and specific usage guidance (e.g., 'Be specific and searchable' for text). It also provides importance bands and created_at format options, which the schema does not convey.

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 clear, specific action: 'Store one or more memories in persistent cognitive memory.' It distinguishes between single, batch, and draft modes, which are the primary variants, and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like recall and forget by defining when to proactively store. This goes well beyond a vague verb+noun, fully differentiating it from 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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE guidance: 'Call proactively whenever the conversation reveals something worth remembering...' and negative guidance: 'Do NOT store ephemeral task details, code snippets, or git-derivable info.' It also includes usage patterns (SINGLE, BATCH, DRAFT) and an end-of-session auto-capture pattern, giving clear context and exclusions.

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