remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does state the core behavior (saving a note) and the return value (new memory's id), which conveys that this is a mutating operation. However, it omits information about memory eviction, the effect of the 'pinned' flag, or any persistence caveats, which are disclosed only in the parameter schema.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple, the schema is rich (including a description of the 'pinned' behavior), and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return details. The main gap is the lack of explicit relation to sibling tools, but overall the information is sufficient for correct 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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both 'text' and 'pinned'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, placing it at the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Save') and clearly identifies the resource ('a note' to 'this agent's memory'). It also states the return value, making the tool's function unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools 'search' and 'recall', which are for retrieval.

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 context: it is for storing a note in the agent's memory. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling retrieval tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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