(S)AGE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains key behavioral traits: tasks persist until explicitly completed or dropped, they don't decay while open, and they survive across sessions. It also outlines the three main operations (create, update status, link memories) with their required parameters, though it doesn't mention error conditions or response formats.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second explains task persistence, the third gives usage context, and the fourth outlines parameter groupings for different operations. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the persistence behavior, usage context, and parameter groupings. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given there's no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic grouping of parameters for different operations: 'To create: provide content + domain. To update status: provide memory_id + status. To link related memories: provide memory_id + link_to.' This operational context goes beyond what the schema provides about individual parameters.

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 verb 'create or update' and the resource 'task in your persistent backlog', distinguishing it from siblings like sage_list (listing) or sage_forget (removing). It explains that tasks are persistent memories that don't decay while open, which adds specific context about the resource type.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for tracking planned work, feature ideas, bug reports, and anything that should survive across sessions. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand its primary use case.

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