memory_save

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds the useful cross-session persistence scope but says nothing about dedup behavior, TTL handling, or global-vs-project effects implied by the non-idempotent flag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too small for a 17-parameter tool rather than padded.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence leaves major gaps: what gets persisted where, required vs optional fields, and how project/global scope behaves. The description is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 only 29% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The mention of "fact, guardrail, note" loosely echoes enum values, but no meaning is added for the many undocumented fields (why, symbol, ttl_days, importance, is_global, etc.).

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?

States a specific verb ("Persist") plus the resource kinds (fact, guardrail, note) and a scope ("across sessions"). This lets an agent distinguish it from read-side siblings like memory_search/memory_get. However, it does not differentiate from other write-side siblings such as reasoning_save or capture_put.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. With several sibling write tools (reasoning_save, capture_put) an agent has no signal for choosing among them.

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