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. It clearly indicates a persistent write operation ('Save ... to your vault') and describes the types of content to store. It does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements, but for a simple create operation the essential behavior is conveyed.

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 and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args section that lists each parameter with a brief explanation. No redundant words or markdown overhead.

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 simple write tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, target vault, and all parameters. The sibling tools are clearly distinct, and nothing else is needed for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters meaningfully: content ('technical content, note, pattern, or decision'), tags ('Optional list of tags for organization' with an example), and title ('Optional title for the memory note'). This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Save') and a concrete resource ('memory snippet, note, bug fix, or architecture decision') with a clear destination ('Memwyre knowledge vault'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are all read/search operations.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through the verb 'Save' and the obvious contrast with sibling names (search_memwyre, list_memories, get_document), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or include any exclusions. The intent is inferable but not spelled out.

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