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

Beyond annotations, the description adds critical context: storage as a key-value pair scoped by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users (persistent vs 24 hours), and the explicit relation with recall/forget. This provides valuable behavioral details not present in the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose, usage, storage details, persistence, tool pairing). No filler or redundant content.

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 simple 2-parameter write operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and tool relationships comprehensively. There is no missing information that would hinder an agent from using the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides clear parameter descriptions with examples. The description reinforces the key-value nature but adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Save data the agent will need to reuse later') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the paired tools 'recall' and 'forget'. It also provides concrete examples of what to store, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states when to use: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' and lists example scenarios. It also tells the agent to pair with 'recall' and 'forget', which serves as a clear alternative/complementary usage guide, effectively distinguishing from siblings.

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