note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses lifecycle semantics that are not derivable from the schema — notes survive context compaction but vanish when the session ends. It also advises including file:line. It stops short of stating whether notes are mutable, deduplicated, or how they surface on recall, which leaves a small gap for a persistence 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then persistence behavior, then the routing rule to save_memory. No filler; every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter persistence tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, lifecycle, content guidance, and the sibling boundary — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

The single `text` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining what the content should be (a learning, with file:line when relevant). That is meaningful guidance beyond the bare string type, though it does not discuss length limits or formatting.

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?

States a specific action and resource: keeping a learning from the current session, with concrete examples of what counts (where a thing lives, what a method does, a result). It explicitly contrasts itself with save_memory for durable facts, so an agent can separate it from siblings like save_memory and recall without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (session-scoped learnings), when-not (durable facts belong in save_memory), and names the alternative tool. The condition that selects between this and save_memory is stated outright rather than inferred.

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