Save a durable memory

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds key behaviors: near-duplicates are merged automatically, obvious secrets are refused, and it returns a saved memory id. These details go beyond the annotations, providing useful expectations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage timing, then behaviors, then return value. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, param semantics, and behavioral traits. It doesn't detail return format beyond 'id', but that is sufficient for a save operation. It lacks rate limits or error handling, but annotations and schema provide no such info. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'content' should be one atomic idea phrased standalone, and that 'solves', 'supersedes', and 'contradicts' create relationships. It also clarifies 'type' enum values as categories and 'source' typically left default. This enriches the schema.

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 verbs ('persist', 'store') and a clear resource ('durable memory'). It states exactly what the tool does: save one atomic fact. The title 'Save a durable memory' reinforces this, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools like ygg_recall (retrieve) and ygg_search (search).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call right after you decide something, learn a lesson, or fix a non-obvious bug.' It also instructs to store one idea per call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies retrieval tools for reading.

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