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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context about storage being scoped by the agent identifier and persistence duration (24 hours for anonymous, persistent for authenticated). This provides behavioral transparency beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 at around 80 words, with the purpose stated in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, pairing, scope, and persistence, leaving no gaps for the 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples of key ('subject_property') and value ('findings, addresses'), but does not add substantial new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Save' and resource 'data' and clearly explains the tool's purpose: storing data for later reuse across conversations or sessions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recall' and 'forget' by mentioning pairing, making purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and provides examples. It also covers scope differences (authenticated vs. anonymous) and recommends pairing with 'recall' and 'forget', offering clear usage guidance.

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