save_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that saving pushes instantly, that files links repo paths for PR review and decay tracking, that scope 'personal' ensures privacy on the local machine, and that secrets should never be stored. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention any authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond the push.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential parameter clarifications and a safety warning. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is wasted.

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 the existence of an output schema (which should cover return values) and the relative simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter context. It might mention error handling or retention expectations, but these are likely covered by the output schema or are not critical for a save operation. The warning about secrets is a valuable addition.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the two most ambiguous parameters: files (links repo paths, enables PR review + decay tracking) and scope ('personal' keeps private on this machine). Title and content are self-evident from the tool's purpose, but tags are not explained. Still, the description provides enough to understand the non-obvious parameters.

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 durable knowledge (conventions, environment quirks, how-to) to shared memory, with immediate pushing. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the many specialized save tools (save_gotcha, save_pattern, save_handoff) by its general scope, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage through examples of what to save (conventions, quirks, how-to) and what not to save (secrets), giving contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the specialized siblings, nor does it mention any conditions under which this tool should not be used beyond the secret prohibition.

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