remember

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 meaningfully adds that the operation is deterministic, audit-tracked, has a default 500-character cap, and that consolidate=true allows up to 2000 characters with background distillation. It does not cover conflict resolution or return behavior, but the disclosed traits go well beyond the raw schema.

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 with zero fluff: the first states purpose, the second provides usage context, the third covers parameter behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful detail without redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, the default vs. consolidated path, and usage context. It omits return value and error handling, which are minor for this simple store operation, so it is almost fully complete.

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 the description must compensate for both parameters. It elegantly explains that 'text' defaults to a 500-character note unless consolidate=true, which then accepts up to 2000 characters and gets distilled in the background. This adds crucial semantics about the consolidate flag that the schema alone could not convey, effectively documenting both parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Store a durable fact') and clearly scopes the use to project/user preferences, decisions, and constraints for the next session. The purpose is instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like recall (retrieval) and forget (deletion), even without naming them.

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 guidance on what to store ('preferences, decisions, constraints, and anything worth knowing next session'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative siblings for retrieval or deletion, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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