Guardar Local

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description confirms a write action ('guarda'), but no additional behavioral details are disclosed, such as whether it overwrites existing entries, merges with prior data, or requires specific permissions. The description adds little beyond what the annotation already conveys.

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 superfluous words. It is concise and to the point, ensuring the core purpose is immediately clear.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 5 required, no output schema), the minimal description is insufficient. It does not clarify required fields, what the tool returns (if anything), or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool with many inputs.

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?

With only 18% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not explain the 11 parameters or the 5 required fields beyond a generic notion of 'correccion o criterio aprendido'. Tags and projectPath have limited schema descriptions, but title, summary, requestedChange, rationale, and others remain undocumented, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.

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 ('Guarda') and identifies the resource ('una nueva correccion o criterio aprendido') with a clear location ('en la memoria del proyecto'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool add_global, which targets global memory, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'memoria del proyecto' implies a local scope, suggesting use for project-specific knowledge, but the description does not explicitly contrast with add_global or other alternatives like search_changes. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance are provided, so usage is inferred but not clarified.

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