memory_save

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

The description does not disclose side effects, return values, error handling, or idempotency. It mentions auto-extraction and auto-classification of parameters but omits important behavioral details such as whether the operation can fail or what the success response looks like, especially given no annotations.

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 concise, using a clear list format for parameters with no superfluous text. Each line is purposeful and directly explains a parameter or the core function, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers parameters well but omits any mention of the output schema or return value, which is necessary for an agent to know what to expect. It also lacks edge-case information, but given the tool's simplicity, the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 description adds meaningful explanations for all six parameters, including the purpose of content, auto-extraction behavior for keywords, allowed categories, default of category, and semantics of immutable, pinned, and related_ids. This goes beyond the raw schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 tool's function: 'Save a new memory to the knowledge graph.' The verb 'save' and the object 'new memory' make the purpose unambiguous, and the distinction from update/delete tools is implied by the word 'new.'

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 usage for new memories but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like memory_update or memory_delete. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, though the phrase 'new memory' provides some implicit direction.

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