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 does add useful detail by saying 'The text is embedded and stored as a searchable chunk,' which explains the storage behavior beyond a bare 'store' verb. However, it does not mention potential side effects, failure conditions, deduplication behavior, or what happens after storage, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args section is compact and necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. The sentence 'Use this to save important information...' is slightly redundant with the opening line but does not meaningfully hurt readability.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, storage behavior, and all parameter meanings, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. It does not enumerate valid memory spaces or relate this tool explicitly to recall, forget, and other siblings, but for a straightforward write operation it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully document parameters. It does so clearly, defining text, space, source, and speaker, including all defaults and the allowed speaker values ('human' or 'assistant'). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 'Store a new memory in the system,' naming a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this as the write operation among siblings like recall and forget, and adds 'Use this to save important information, decisions, or knowledge' to reinforce the intended use.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to save important information, decisions, or knowledge.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the sibling set is intuitive enough that an agent can infer this is the right tool for storing rather than retrieving or deleting memories.

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