save_memory

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

The description discloses that content must be 1-100,000 characters and raises ValueError if invalid. It also specifies the return format. However, it does not mention if the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing data, or any authentication requirements. Given no annotations, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with three parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the input constraints, default values, and output format. It lacks details on whether session_id must pre-exist or if the tool overwrites, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: content (text with length constraints), session_id (identifier), and source (default 'manual'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 states 'Save memory' (保存する) with specific arguments for content, session_id, and source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_memory, list_sessions, and delete_memory by focusing on saving a new memory entry.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the tool's function without mentioning prerequisites or when not to use it. The sibling names imply distinct operations, but no direct comparison is given.

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