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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a write operation (saves), requires user approval, and interacts with an OAuth-selected vault. It also explicitly warns against silent capture, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation defaults.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical usage rule, then states the purpose and an exclusion. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple tool (2 params, 1 required), an output schema is present, and a rich description covering purpose, usage, and exclusions, the description is sufficiently complete. It leaves out edge cases like duplicate handling or overwrite behavior, but these are not essential for a basic store operation.

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 both parameters (content and tags) have detailed descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description explicitly states the action ('Saves'), the resource ('content to the OAuth-selected vault'), and the scope ('user-approved content'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by being the only write operation to store memories, contrasting with search, forget, and status tools.

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 criteria for use: 'Use this only when the user explicitly asks to remember something or confirms a proposed durable fact.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'do not use it for silent conversation capture.' This effectively guides selection against alternatives.

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