memory_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns merge instructions to be carried out with Read/Edit tools and handles the case where no memory file exists by creating it directly. However, it does not detail authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond writing.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections for triggers, anti-triggers, and behavioral instructions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While not perfectly concise, every sentence adds value and the thoroughness aids correct usage.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return value and required subsequent actions, handles the exception of no existing memory file, and provides comprehensive guidance on what and when to save. The only minor ambiguity is 'nearest AGENTS.md', but overall it thoroughly equips the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions already cover parameters. The description adds significant meaning for 'learning' by specifying format ('one concise sentence') and giving concrete examples of what constitutes a durable fact. The 'cwd' parameter is not further elaborated, but schema explains it sufficiently.

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 explicitly states 'Persist a durable project fact to the nearest AGENTS.md' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool memory_forget by focusing on saving vs. forgetting.

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 provides detailed when-to-use instructions: 'Call this PROACTIVELY the moment you learn something lasting and non-inferable' and lists specific triggers and anti-triggers. It also advises calling at task wrap-up and explicitly states what not to save.

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