whim_facts_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that facts persist across sessions, which is useful, but it does not describe what happens when saving an existing fact name (overwrite behavior), any restrictions on names/values, or the nature of the response. For a save/write operation, an agent needs more behavioral cues.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The core action and a clarifying definition of the payload are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse.

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 (2 string params, no nested objects, no output schema) and the description covers the basic operation. Still, the agent would benefit from knowing overwrite behavior and how this differs from other 'save'-type siblings like whim_context_set, so it is minimally viable but not complete.

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%, and both 'name' and 'value' are explained with a concrete example for the name. The description itself adds the 'key-value pairs' framing, but the schema already carries the essential parameter meaning, so the tool description does not need to compensate.

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 verb ('Save') and resource ('a named fact'), and clarifies that facts are key-value pairs. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whim_context_set, but the tool name and 'fact' terminology reasonably convey its distinct scope.

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 explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance is given. However, describing facts as 'key-value pairs that persist across sessions' implies the intended use — storing stable named facts for later retrieval. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or how it compares to context or plan saving.

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