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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that text is parsed into structured memory items, becomes searchable later, and that pasted text is automatically split. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether saves are idempotent, whether duplicates are created, or what the output/return value looks like. The disclosed behaviors are useful but incomplete for a write operation.

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 and well-structured: three sentences that state the core purpose, highlight the parsing behavior, and provide a specific use case with instructions. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, no useful annotations, and moderate complexity (nested object), the description covers the main operational aspects: what to save, how it is processed, and how to use it for a special case (pasted memories). It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but for a simple save tool, it is reasonably complete and unlikely to confuse an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'text' parameter can contain multiple memories that will be split automatically, and that pasted notes should be passed in full. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'thought or note to save' and clarifies intent.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: saving thoughts, insights, facts, or todos to Working Memory. It also distinguishes itself from search_memory by noting the saved items become searchable a moment later, and addresses a specific use case (importing memories from another assistant) that sets it apart from likely sibling 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: for saving thoughts/insights/facts/todos, and for pasted memories/notes from another assistant. It names search_memory as the counterpart for retrieving saved items. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or how it differs from capture_memory/manage_memory, but the given use cases provide adequate contextual guidance.

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