remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses the key trait of cross-session persistence, which is valuable. However, it does not mention return behavior, expiration nuances, idempotency, or that some categories like 'episode' have a short default TTL that may not persist as the blanket statement implies.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action and persistence guarantee are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and the where-to-use guidance immediately follows the purpose.

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 tool has moderate complexity with six parameters, a nested metadata object, an enum, and no output schema. The description is adequate for initial selection, but it does not explain how this tool relates to update, forget, recall, or memory_list, and it gives no hint about the returned value or created memory identifier.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds some semantic context about 'important' information and future-session availability, but does not meaningfully enrich individual parameter meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific action ('Store') and resource ('episodic memory' that persists across sessions), making it clear this is the create/write memory tool. It distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like recall and memory_list, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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 clear trigger conditions: use when learning something important about the user, project, or self that should be available in future sessions. It gives good context for when to invoke the tool, but does not state when not to use it or contrast it with update, forget, or other memory mutation tools.

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