save_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write target and the read-back resource, but the destructive overwrite semantics and default-timestamp behavior live only in the schema, leaving the file-impact disclosure thin for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the verb and destination, then the trigger condition, then the restore instruction. The enumerated content list is long but each element maps to a required narrative field, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description covers what to save, when to save it, where it lands, and how to restore it. Only the destructive overwrite caveat and pagination/file-growth behavior are left implicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the entry structure ('what the user is building, key question...') and mode intent, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (persist) and resource (ideation context and design rationale) plus the concrete destination (.aimdb/memory.md). An agent can distinguish it from proposal/record siblings, which mutate schemas rather than memory.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Call this after every confirmed proposal') and a companion lifecycle step ('On session start, read aimdb://architecture/memory to restore this context'). No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, but no close sibling competes for this role.

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