save_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful behaviors: auto-enrichment, auto-extraction of entities if None, auto-calculation of strength, and the return fields. However, it does not clarify what auto-enrichment actually does, whether saving overwrites existing memories, or what side effects might occur.

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 docstring-style format is compact and well organized: a one-line summary, a bullet-like Args list, Returns, and Raises. Every section adds value, and there is no redundant fluff.

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?

The description covers parameters and return values well, and an output schema is indicated, but it lacks context about the tool's role relative to the many sibling memory tools, storage lifecycle semantics, and side effects. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, some guidance on when to save to short-term as opposed to promoting or consolidating would make it complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter, including type constraints, maximums, defaults, and automatic behaviors. This is substantially richer than the bare schema definitions.

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 ('Save') and resource ('memory to short-term storage'), and adds 'auto-enrichment' to signal a distinctive behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like promote_memory or consolidate_memories, though 'short-term storage' hints at the distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as promote_memory, consolidate_memories, or search_memory. The description implies saving a memory, but it does not address selection criteria, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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