auto_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'automatically save' without detailing what happens to existing preferences (overwrite? merge?), whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. The lack of depth leaves agents uncertain about the action's impact.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and contains the key instruction. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections or bullet points) that could improve readability for an AI agent.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: when to call and what it does. But it does not explain the consequences of not calling it or how parameters affect behavior, leaving gaps for an agent to reason about.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description in the schema (e.g., '额外标签' for extra_tags). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 the tool automatically saves user preferences ('自动保存用户偏好'), and includes an explicit timing requirement ('每次对话结束前必须调用'). This gives a specific verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'recall' that might also handle memory.

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 instructs 'Must be called before the end of each conversation' ('每次对话结束前必须调用'), providing clear when-to-use guidance. This is a strong directive that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's necessity.

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