管家记忆-保存

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides two useful behavioral notes: storage is local and plaintext API keys/tokens/passwords are not saved. However, it omits overwrite/merge behavior, duplicate handling, persistence scope, authorization requirements, and return/error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the important no-plaintext-secrets caveat included without filler. It is appropriately terse, though the main clause partly restates what the title already conveys.

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?

Given seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It provides a useful safety boundary but leaves parameter semantics, usage context, and expected behavior largely unspecified.

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 0%, yet the description explains none of the seven parameters. An agent cannot infer the meaning of kind, scope, title, content, confidence, expires_at, or importance from the text.

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 ('保存一条本地管家记忆') and the resource ('local butler memory'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools, but '保存' contrasts with memory_search/update/archive/export/import well enough.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus memory_update, memory_archive, or memory_import. The only contextual hints are '本地' and the secret-exclusion caveat, which are not sufficient selection criteria.

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