remember

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

With annotations providing only readOnlyHint and destructiveHint (both false), the description adds value by explaining persistence, importance scale, memory types, and draft mode behavior. However, it lacks details on retention limits, overwriting policies, or error handling, which would improve transparency.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, examples, and parameter list. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. Front-loading with the main action and usage guidance is effective.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no required ones, output schema exists), the description covers usage scenarios, parameter details, and provides examples. It omits error cases and limits but is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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%, and the description provides detailed explanations for all 12 parameters, including importance range, domain examples, and emotional state values. Each parameter is described meaningfully, fully compensating for the lack of schema 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 clearly states 'Store one or more memories in persistent cognitive memory' and explains different modes (SINGLE, BATCH, DRAFT). It covers what the tool does but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'forget' or 'recall', though the purpose is distinct enough.

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?

Explicitly provides WHEN TO USE: 'Call proactively whenever the conversation reveals something worth remembering' and what NOT to store: 'Do NOT store ephemeral task details, code snippets, or git-derivable info.' Also covers DRAFT mode for end-of-session auto-capture, giving clear context.

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