save_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains key side effects such as temporal decay, automatic forgetting if unused, and potential promotion to long-term storage. It also documents the ValueError on validation failure, providing meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 moderately sized, with an introductory sentence explaining storage behavior followed by an Args list. Each sentence provides useful information, and the structured list is easy to scan. It could be slightly tighter, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavioral consequences, parameter semantics, and possible errors. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could mention interactions with siblings, but that is not strictly required for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds valuable semantic meaning to every parameter: content, tags, entities, source, context, and meta all receive explanatory text plus constraints like character limits and counts. This far exceeds the raw type information in 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 opens with 'Save a new memory to short-term storage,' which clearly states the action (save) and resource (memory). It further distinguishes from siblings by noting temporal decay and auto-promotion, setting it apart from 'promote_memory' and 'consolidate_memories'.

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 implies when to use the tool—creating a new memory—and contrasts with sibling operations like searching or consolidating through its focus on saving. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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