Persist a memory fact

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific file path and examples of what to save, but it does not disclose behaviors such as whether duplicate notes overwrite or append, or whether any permission is required. Given annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description provides some added context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. It includes useful examples (decision, gotcha, TODO, location) and exact file path without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and file location, but it omits the 'tags' parameter semantics. It also does not clarify behavior on duplicates or whether it appends to the JSON file. While low complexity, the missing tag explanation and minor behavioral gaps prevent a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly implies the 'text' parameter via 'Save a durable note', but it completely omits any explanation of the 'tags' parameter, which is an array. Without description coverage, the agent cannot infer that tags are for categorizing notes. The description only partially clarifies parameter semantics.

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 action ('Save') and specific resource ('a durable note' to '.slimdex/memory.json'), with concrete examples of content (decision, gotcha, TODO, location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_delete, which handle retrieval or removal. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool by listing example content types (decision, gotcha, TODO, location), suggesting it is intended for storing durable personal or project notes. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like memory_get or memory_search, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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