memory_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It states this is a save operation (implying creation/persistence) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether duplicates are allowed, how conflicts are handled, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of memory types adds some context but doesn't explain their behavioral differences.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with a type listing. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting annotations/schema descriptions.

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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools including similar creation operations, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns), the description doesn't explain the tool's role in the broader memory/entity system, when to use it, or how parameters interact. For a creation tool with multiple configuration options, more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (only 1 required), the description provides almost no parameter information. It mentions memory types but doesn't explain what each type means or how they affect the save operation. No guidance is given about content format, project association, tagging conventions, or source attribution.

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 action ('Save a memory') and target ('to the brain'), and lists the four memory types. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_search and memory_verify by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or validation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with entity_create which might be a related creation operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose memory_save over entity_create for similar data, or when to use different memory types. There's no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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