save_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral context. It mentions 'long-term storage' and a return dictionary containing a doc_id, which implies creation, but it does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing memories, requires specific permissions, or has other side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 highly concise, using a standard Args/Returns docstring format. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. It is well-structured and immediately readable.

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 information: inputs and the return value, and an output schema exists. However, it omits usage scenarios, error conditions, and edge cases (e.g., duplicate topics). For a simple save tool, this is largely sufficient, but a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: 'category' includes examples, 'topic' is defined as a short title, and 'content' as detailed text. This adds value beyond the bare parameter names, though it lacks constraints on allowed values or formats.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('memory'), and mentions 'long-term storage' to indicate persistence. Sibling tools (delete/update/verify/query) confirm this is a creation operation, distinguishing it from related actions.

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 implies usage ('Save a memory') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_memory or query_memory. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, only the inferred distinction from sibling names.

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