mem_save_prompt

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: the 400-character preview with the `content_truncated` flag and the need to retain the sync_id. This adds meaningful context about return behavior and follow-up actions, going beyond what annotations alone indicate.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and immediately providing the most critical behavioral caveat (truncation and sync_id). Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 description covers the essential behavior (save, preview, sync_id) and benefits from a detailed schema and output schema. It does not explain the ambiguous-project recovery flow or the project_choice_reason/recovery_token interaction, but those are thoroughly documented in the schema, so the overall context is sufficient for an agent to operate effectively.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. The mention of sync_id refers to an output field rather than a parameter, adding no extra clarity to parameter usage beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('a user prompt') with a clear scope ('in an existing session'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mem_save by referencing the existing-session requirement and the sync_id linking behavior, making the purpose 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 clearly implies the context of use: saving a prompt into an existing session, and emphasizes keeping the sync_id for linking later saves. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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