save_file_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'save' without explaining side effects, permissions, or reversibility. There is no mention of what happens on save, conflicts, or whether existing data is overwritten.

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 a single short sentence, which is overly minimal for a tool with 9 parameters and complex semantics. While concise, it sacrifices informativeness, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, mutation, output schema exists), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'memory' entails, how relationships are encoded, or what the output represents. The presence of an output schema does not absolve the description from providing context.

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 tool description provides no explanations for any of the 9 parameters. The required 'file_path' and 'summary' are not elaborated, nor are optional ones like 'dependencies', 'symbols', or 'embedding'. This completely fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Guarda memoria por archivo y relaciones' indicates saving memory by file and relationships, which is a clear verb-resource pairing but lacks specificity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'capture_project_memory' or 'save_cross_interface_decision', leading to vagueness.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not include any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or which scenarios are appropriate, leaving the agent without direction.

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