save_wisdom

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sidecar creation behavior ('creates sidecar'), file location paths (.wisdom/sections/, ~/.claude/wisdom/), and storage semantics via the schema's parameter descriptions. The description itself is lighter on behavioral details but the schema descriptions compensate with path-level 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?

Three sentences, all substantive, front-loaded with purpose and practical guidance. The 'future you will thank present you' closing is light filler but harmless. Could trim the encouraging phrase, but overall it's efficient and informative without redundancy.

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?

For a write/persist tool with 6 params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description reasonably covers when, why, and how to route entries. The annotate_wisdom sibling handles enrichment separately. Missing minor details like whether existing wisdom gets overwritten or appended, but this isn't critical for correct tool selection.

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 100% and each parameter has substantive descriptions (scope enum with default paths, file_path sidecar behavior, section path, wisdom_type enum). The description adds value by explaining the routing logic across file_path/section/scope:global. Given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is elevated by the description's clear parameter usage guidance.

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 uses specific language ('Persist a lesson, pattern, caution, edge case, or decision') with concrete examples of what to save and why. It clearly establishes this is a write/persistence operation distinct from siblings like get_wisdom, list_wisdom, and annotate_wisdom which are read/manipulation operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Save when you discover something non-obvious: a tricky bug, an important constraint, a pattern that works well, or a decision rationale') and provides routing guidance across the main parameters (file_path for file-specific, section for project area, scope:global for cross-project). This is excellent usage guidance with concrete conditions.

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