note

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that tags feed both keyword index and embedding, and that memories are retrieved by relevance. However, it does not mention whether saving overwrites existing notes, authorization needs, or side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 brief, uses bullet points effectively for tags, and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide comprehensive context. It explains tags and retrieval but omits details on domain and session parameters, return values, error scenarios, or creation vs. update behavior, leaving the tool incompletely documented.

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 0%. The description explains the 'tags' parameter in detail (comma-separated keywords, feeds indexing and embedding) and implies that 'content' is the memory content. But 'domain' and 'session' parameters are not explained, so the description adds partial value.

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 general long-term memory (fact, decision, finding). Stored as type='note'.' This specifies the action and resource, and implicitly differentiates from retrieval siblings like recall and search, but does not explicitly contrast with other memory-saving 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 explains retrieval using recall(), search(), and pulse(), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like anti_pattern, checkpoint, or reasoning. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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