save_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself: it discloses that duplicates only produce a warning (not a rejection), that configured auto-tags are added, and that source defaults to the connected client name. It still leaves out things like retention/permission behavior and what happens if duplicates are confirmed, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 one-line summary and the append_memory pointer are front-loaded before the Args block. The Args list is long but every entry adds information the bare schema lacks; only the illustrative examples could be trimmed.

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 9-param write tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters plus the two non-obvious behaviors (duplicate warning, auto-tagging). An output schema exists so return values need not be explained; the remaining gap is around overwrite/update semantics versus update_memory.

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 — and it does, documenting all nine params with the allowed category and importance values, a comma-separated tags format, a default for source, the thread-linking convention, and a concrete entities JSON example.

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 verb and resource ('Save a piece of context/memory for future conversations') and names the sibling it overlaps with ('consider append_memory instead'), so an agent can tell it apart from append_memory/update_memory without opening schemas.

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 one explicit routing rule — if the content likely duplicates an existing memory, use append_memory — which is exactly the decision an agent faces here. It does not say when to prefer update_memory or whether to search first, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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