Guardar Global

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, which matches the 'Guarda' action, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention persistence semantics, overwrite behavior, authorization requirements, or side effects, which is minimal for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is concise and readably structured, though its brevity sacrifices important details that are penalized in other dimensions.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, only readOnlyHint=false as an annotation, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It fails to address return values, the meaning of fields like before/after/relatedPaths, or how global entries interact with local ones.

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 only 10% (only the 'tags' parameter has a description), and the tool description does not explain any parameters. Required fields like title, summary, requestedChange, and rationale are left entirely to name inference, which is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 the action ('Guarda') and the resource ('memoria global'), specifying the content type ('correccion o criterio transversal'). The 'global' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling add_local, though it could more explicitly contrast local vs global storage.

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 usage guidance is given. The description does not mention when to prefer add_global over add_local, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The only hint is the word 'global', which is implicit rather than explicit.

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