Save memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds useful curation guidance but fails to disclose critical traits like whether saving is idempotent, whether it updates or creates when an id is provided, or what the side effects are. This is a significant gap 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then a valuable usage/exclusion note. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 no annotations and an output schema absent, the description provides a clear scope and use cases but misses behavioral details like update semantics, interaction with other memory tools (e.g., get_memory, search_memory), and lifecycle. It is adequate but has notable gaps for a tool this complex.

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 80%, so most parameters (id, type, content, etc.) are already documented. The tool description adds minimal parameter context beyond the concept of 'curated' and 'distilled' content, which aligns with the schema but does not go further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Save a curated memory for the current project' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the categories it applies to (decisions, requirements, architecture, etc.) and explicitly excludes raw conversation text, distinguishing it from sibling memory 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance via the list of memory types and a clear exclusion ('Do NOT save raw conversation text'). However, it does not name alternative tools for specific scenarios (e.g., record_decision for decisions), so it falls just short of explicit alternative naming.

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