erinys_save

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

The description discloses the principal fallback logic (env ERINYS_PRINCIPAL → 'unknown') and the access gate priority (explicit args > env > None), including POLICY_DENIED rejection. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like return values, side effects, or permissions for the save operation itself, so it partially covers the burden.

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 relatively short, with the purpose front-loaded, but it mixes Japanese and English and includes a cryptic 'P0-7' reference, which adds noise. It is not excessively long but could be clearer.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 12 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations. The description covers only the access-control and provenance aspects, leaving the rest of the parameters and the overall save behavior under-specified. It is incomplete for a complex tool.

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%, and the description only explains principal, allowed_projects, and allowed_scopes (3 of 12 parameters). The remaining parameters (type, scope, project, metadata, topic_key, session_id, source_class) are undocumented, leaving a significant gap.

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 opens with 'Save a structured observation to ERINYS memory,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like erinys_save_prompt or erinys_batch_save by focusing on 'structured observation,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as erinys_batch_save or erinys_save_prompt. The description only explains internal behavior (principal resolution, access gates) rather than usage context or exclusions.

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