save_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that notes persist into 'future sessions' and that scope is limited to durable lessons, which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing about overwrite behavior, dedup, or return semantics, so with zero annotation coverage there are gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the exclusion rule. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter save tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what to save (durable lessons), the reason (future sessions), and the boundary (not one-off details). Only the absence of any behavioral context on write semantics keeps it from being fully 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 100% and parameter names/descriptions already carry the meaning. The description's examples loosely map to the topic enum values (plugin, preference, mix), adding marginal value but no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (remember/save) and resource (a lasting lesson for future sessions), with three concrete examples (plugin quirk, user's taste, mix lesson) that pin down what a 'note' is. It implicitly separates itself from the session-scoped tools by emphasizing cross-session persistence, though it never names the sibling tools (find_notes, delete_note) it relates to.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Save lasting lessons only, not one-off details of this song.' That gives a clear inclusion/exclusion rule rather than mere implied context. It stops short of naming alternative tools for the excluded case.

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