save_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (a dictionary with status, doc_id, topic, category) but does not mention side effects beyond saving, potential overwrites, idempotency, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clear Args list and a Returns line. No extraneous information is present; every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple with three string parameters and no enums. The description covers purpose, all parameters, and returns. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if a memory with the same topic exists) and does not leverage the output schema to further clarify, making it slightly incomplete.

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 description compensates for the schema's 0% parameter coverage by explaining each parameter: category with examples, topic as a short title, and content as detailed text. This adds meaningful insight beyond the bare schema types.

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 saves a memory to long-term storage, using a specific verb ('save') and resource ('memory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_memory, update_memory, and query_memory by indicating a write/create operation.

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 context of 'save a memory to long-term storage' clearly implies when to use this tool (creating a new memory). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as referring to update_memory for modifications, so it falls just short of a 5.

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