memory_save_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates persistence ('long-term memory', 'future reference') but does not explain what happens on save (e.g., whether duplicates are created, whether an ID is returned, or if there are any size/access constraints). This is adequate but leaves some operational behavior to the agent's inference.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by use-case examples. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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 save operation with a well-described schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention return values or overwrite behavior, but the core purpose, category examples, and resource are sufficiently covered, making it nearly complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little param-level detail. However, the prose lists categories that mirror the enum (user preferences, project context, technical decisions, conversations, events), reinforcing the intended values. This earns the baseline score of 3 without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and clearly identifies the resource ('long-term memory'), and it enumerates the kinds of information to remember (user preferences, project context, technical decisions, conversations, events). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search_memory, memory_update_memory, and memory_delete_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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to remember...') and gives concrete examples of appropriate content. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious, and the guidance is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose this over search/update/delete.

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