remember

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the mutation and destructive-overwrite behavior ('Write or overwrite') and the file format, which is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get elsewhere. However, it does not state what happens to an existing entry beyond overwriting it, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects such as workspace index updates.

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?

A single 16-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs in the storage format. There is zero filler; every word contributes, and the essential action is immediately visible.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description leaves gaps: no return value information, no warning about the overwrite consequence, and no guidance on when creating vs. overwriting is appropriate. The rich schema compensates substantially for content structure, making this minimally adequate but not 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 100%, and the schema already documents every parameter — including an unusually detailed content parameter with per-type examples for decisions, rules, knowledge, and references. The tool description's mention of YAML frontmatter aligns with the tags/themes parameters but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pair (write/overwrite), a clear resource (memory entry), and the storage format (Markdown file with YAML frontmatter). This clearly differentiates it from sibling read/search tools like recall, search, and list, and from management tools like delete, move, and organize_memories — an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. The write/overwrite verb implies it is for persisting memories while recall/search are for retrieval, but an agent must infer that. The detailed content parameter description covers content formatting for decisions/rules/knowledge/references, but that addresses what to write, not when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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