save_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the write is persistent and that the tool stores knowledge, but it does not describe duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, or effects on existing memories. This is a noticeable gap 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?

The description is well organized: purpose, trigger examples, then argument details. It is front-loaded and every section earns its place without filler or redundancy.

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 what the tool does, when to use it, and all parameters, while return behavior is left to the output schema. It is slightly incomplete because it does not address existing memory entries or differentiate sibling update/forget scenarios, but for a simple save-style tool this is acceptable.

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?

Even though the schema has no parameter descriptions, the Args section documents all three parameters: content guidance, valid category values, and tag format with an example. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save a piece of knowledge to persistent memory.' This clearly communicates what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like recall_memories and forget_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?

The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when you learn something worth remembering,' followed by concrete categories. It does not mention when to avoid using it or when to use update_memory or forget_memory instead, so it stops short of full decision-rule coverage.

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