save_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it 'saves' a conversation, implying a write with side effects (persistence), but doesn't detail what happens on overwrite, whether it's destructive to existing mementos, how attachments are processed, or whether multiple scopes interact. For a persistence tool with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with critical usage conditional and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the core action and prerequisites but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (text vs summary vs conversation), what 'explicit user request' means concretely for an agent, or how scope affects storage. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a persistence tool with this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema — it mentions attachments exist and the tool saves conversations/summaries, which loosely maps to text/summary/conversation params. But it doesn't clarify the relationship between text, summary, and conversation (e.g., must one be provided, do they combine, etc.). 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 states it saves a conversation or summary as a memento with attachments, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from sibling save_memento and save_memento_attachments — the relationship between these close siblings is unclear, which limits differentiation.

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 'Only use this on explicit user request' and requires 'init_memento or get_mementos first.' This provides clear when-to-use context and prerequisites. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like save_memento, but it does give clear preconditions for usage.

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