Save Memory

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

Annotations already signal this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description complements them by explaining that the tool automatically routes to the correct table, which is behavior beyond the schema. It does not detail overwrites/conflict behavior, but the annotations give baseline coverage and the description adds useful routing context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose and routing behavior are front-loaded, and the per-type field mappings are compact enough to be quickly scanned and acted on.

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 save/routing tool with only two parameters, it covers what types are accepted, which fields apply, and the automatic routing behavior. A return-value mention would be helpful, but the absence is not surprising for a save operation without an output schema, and siblings provide more specialized endpoints if finer detail is needed.

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 schema already documents 'type' and 'data', and the description meaningfully enriches 'data' by enumerating valid field groups per type: project, preference, and learning. It doesn't specify required vs optional field semantics, but it gives an agent the key content expectations that the schema leaves open.

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 a clear resource, and underscores its distinct role by calling itself a 'Unified save' that routes to the correct table based on type. This makes it easy to distinguish from the per-type sibling tools such as memory_project_save and memory_learning_save.

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 clearly communicates how to use the tool: provide a type and data matching that type, and it lists the expected fields for each type. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement against the sibling tools, but the 'Unified save' framing gives enough context for an agent to infer this is the central routing alternative.

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