Confirm that facts have been saved in your memory, removing them from the source so only the archived copy remains. Pass the IDs and storage location to finalize.
Conferma che hai salvato questi fatti nella tua memoria: escono dal serbatoio per sempre (restano solo in archivio).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| dove | No | dove li hai salvati, es. 'memoria ChatGPT' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states facts 'leave the tank forever' and 'remain only in archive,' hinting at a destructive or irreversible operation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, or what happens to related data. The lack of explicit side-effect disclosure is a gap.
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 single sentence is not concise in a helpful way; it packs a vague instruction with an implicit side effect, and the wording is ambiguous. The core action is buried behind a confirmational phrase rather than front-loaded.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a description that fails to explain the operation, prerequisites, or return behavior, the tool is under-specified. An agent would struggle to know exactly what calling this tool does with the provided 'ids' and 'dove' values.
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 schema provides a description for 'dove' (50% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain 'ids' or clarify how 'dove' relates to the archival action. The description does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.
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 reads as an instruction to the agent ('Conferma che hai salvato...') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It implies a confirmation/archival action but never clearly states the tool's function (e.g., marking facts as absorbed/archived). The verb is directed at the user, not the tool, making purpose ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (travaso_archivio, travaso_ripristina, etc.). The description implies a post-save confirmation but doesn't contrast it with alternatives or give conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.