Save Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral detail—automatic categorization into an appropriate section—but does not disclose potential side effects, duplicate handling, or failure behavior. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and trigger are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a distinct behavioral trait, so 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the trigger condition, and a key behavioral aspect. It could briefly mention what the agent should expect after saving, but that is a minor omission for such a straightforward operation.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'fact', and the schema already describes it fully at 100% coverage. The description references the fact but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('save a fact to memory') and adds a specific scoping condition ('when asked directly'). It distinguishes the tool from auto_save through the explicit vs automatic distinction, though it doesn't name sibling tools or fully delineate the boundary with save_to_section.

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 phrase 'when asked directly' provides an explicit trigger condition for using the tool. However, it does not say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as auto_save or save_to_section, leaving the agent to infer those boundaries.

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