save_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behaviors: 'Masks secrets and provides directory isolation', plus persistence to a specific vault path. It does not disclose overwrite behavior or failure modes, but the disclosed traits are genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 compact: one purpose sentence plus a structured Args block with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then provides parameter details in a scannable format.

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?

All six parameters are covered, required fields are clear, and the output schema handles return values. The description gives the agent everything needed to call the tool correctly and confidently.

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%, and the Args section compensates fully by clearly documenting every parameter, including kind's allowed values, memory_id format, tags as a list, and workspace_dir default. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Saves a persistent context note, architectural decision, task handoff, or lesson into the workspace Memory Vault'. This makes the write purpose unmistakable and clearly differentiates it from read/search siblings by emphasizing persistence and a target location.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a persistent note, decision, handoff, or lesson needs to be stored. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the correct situation.

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