Save memory

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: memories are recallable across connected AI tools, and the call returns the new memory's id and timestamp. It omits any duplicate-detection or overwrite semantics despite idempotentHint=false, which keeps it from a 5.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the following sentences add usage, content style, and return value without padding. It is slightly redundant with the schema's content guidance, but no sentence 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?

For a mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: persistent cross-tool storage, content expectations, and the returned id/timestamp. It could say more about duplicate writes or project scoping, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the schema already defines all four parameters, including the project naming convention and the content example. The description reinforces content quality ('one self-contained statement per memory, with enough context to make sense on its own') but largely repeats schema guidance rather than adding new parameter syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Store a fact, decision, convention or piece of context about a project') and makes the purpose distinct from search/list/delete siblings. An agent can tell immediately that this is the write path for persistent project 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?

Explicitly says when to use it: the user asks you to remember something, or you learn something durable that future sessions need, with concrete examples like architecture choices and deployment gotchas. It stops short of naming alternatives such as search_memory or delete_memory, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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