save_gotcha

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('save') which implies a write operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the gotcha is stored permanently, whether it can be overwritten, how it will be retrieved, or whether it affects existing memories. The description adds little beyond the verb itself.

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, punchy sentence that immediately conveys purpose and content style. It contains no filler and is front-loaded with the core action and examples.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and an output schema that is not described. The description gives only the gotcha content pattern and omits usage context, parameter semantics, and expected outcomes. For a 4-parameter tool, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only illustrates the content of the 'gotcha' field ('X breaks when Y') but gives no meaning for 'tags', 'files', or 'details'. Without that, an agent cannot know what values to provide or why they exist.

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's purpose: saving a small trap that cost time, with concrete examples ('X breaks when Y', 'always Z before W'). It uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('gotcha'), and the examples differentiate it from siblings like save_note or save_pattern by focusing on costly pitfalls.

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 implies when to use it (for small traps that cost time) and suggests conciseness ('Short and punchy'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it. Sibling tools like save_note, save_pattern, and save_handoff exist, but no comparative guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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