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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the important traits that writes persist across sessions, that each memory should be one self-contained sentence, and that secrets are prohibited. It says nothing about what happens on duplicate or contradictory memories, how visibility or is_atomic affect storage, or what a successful call returns, leaving real gaps 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what to store, then the format constraint, then the security rule. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padding.

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?

With six parameters, 17% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should explain the undocumented parameters and its relationship to remember_with_context and recall. It covers only the required content parameter, so an agent would have to guess at visibility defaults, event dating, and atomic behavior.

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 only 17% – just the type enum is documented – so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It adds genuine meaning only for content (one short, self-contained sentence, no secrets); is_atomic, event_date, session_id, and visibility are left entirely unexplained in both description and 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?

A specific verb ("Save") plus a clear resource (a memory for future sessions) and an enumerated set of things worth storing: preference, decision, correction, lasting fact. It falls short of a 5 because the sibling remember_with_context is never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell from this text when this tool is preferable to it.

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?

It gives clear inclusion criteria ("something worth knowing in future sessions") plus a format rule and a hard exclusion ("Never store secrets"). What is missing is routing guidance against the many recall/remember siblings, so the agent must infer that remember_with_context exists for the contextual variant.

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