save_note

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait, cross-session persistence, and frames notes as short. It omits scope (per-project vs global), storage/indexing side effects, deduplication, and whether saving triggers anything downstream, which matters for an unannotated write tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and uses a parenthetical to enumerate the covered note types. There is no filler and nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose plus the persistence rationale. It is nearly complete, with the only gap being call scope and any storage-side behavior a caller might need to anticipate.

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 100%, so both 'tags' and 'text' are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the qualitative sense of 'short' and examples of note content, but nothing about tag format, reuse, or why text is not a required field despite being the payload.

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 pairs a specific verb (save) with a specific resource (short project note) and clarifies the note's content domain with concrete examples (decision, gotcha, convention). The save-vs-recall split against the sibling recall_notes is implied by the verb, but no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It signals the appropriate content to record and the reason to do so ('survives across sessions'), which implies when to use it. However, it never states when not to save, nor points to recall_notes for retrieval, leaving the usage boundary to inference.

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