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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: the tool rewrites content into a summary and never keeps exact wording, so it warns against use when wording matters. It also states 'It only saves,' clarifying no read/return of facts, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and positive triggers before the exclusions, and nearly every sentence carries routing or behavioral information. It is slightly long and the 'It is for a sentence or two of standing knowledge' clause partly restates the opening, costing a little economy.

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 no-output-schema write tool, the definition covers purpose, exclusions, alternatives, and the lossy-summarization behavior thoroughly. It does not state what a successful call returns (e.g., confirmation or category assigned), which is the only notable gap.

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 brand, content and category are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds a useful content-length constraint ('a sentence or two') but does not otherwise elaborate on parameter usage or formats, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Saves a short fact about the user's company, brand, product, audience or how they work... to their Nokbase vault') and scopes it tightly to short standing knowledge. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings save_prompt and get_brand_context, so an agent can route 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('when the user asks to remember, note or save such a fact') with example utterances, and explicit when-not-to-use rules with a named alternative ('Do NOT use it for a document... use save_prompt'). It also names get_brand_context for the read case.

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